By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry JohnsonName: 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 May 28, 2008 at 3:21 PM in Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Iraq, Media, Media Bias, Obamedia
Talk about deja vu. Today we are hearing “stunning” revelations from President Bush’s former press secretary, who admits the Administration was manipulating news to build a false case for going to war with Iraq. Excuse me if those of us who have been saying this for five years don’t care a whit about the so-called revelations from Scott McClellan. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to line up and do a mea culpa. The Washington Post, devoid of any keen sense of irony, NOW informs us that:
the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war. . . .
But in a chapter titled “Selling the War,” he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”
“Over that summer of 2002,” he writes, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.”
McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”
That, boys and girls, is what I call no shit analysis. I was warning about this in May of 2003 (and Joe Wilson was doing so in 2002).
UPDATE: V. has created a YouTube of the audio. It is immediately below.
MICHELE NORRIS, host:
As the search for weapons of mass destruction continues, a growing number of intelligence officials are stepping forward to express concerns that the Bush administration deliberately manipulated data to build support for the war. That concern has reached the point that a group has formed calling themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. According to today’s New York Times, they’ve taken the extraordinary step of writing to President Bush, protesting what they call ‘a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions.’ Larry Johnson is a former CIA and State Department intelligence analyst. He believes there’s no question that intelligence was misused.
Mr. LARRY JOHNSON (Former CIA and State Department Intelligence Analyst): There are a lot of people who are still active duty inside the agency who are just completely distraught with what they view as a cooking of the books, the real genuine politicization of the intelligence that I don’t think we’ve seen since the efforts during the Contra war to try to shape some of the intelligence.
NORRIS: So was this a case where data was misinterpreted by those within the administration or were officials putting pressure on those within the intelligence community to–and I want to be careful about using the word ‘exaggerate’…
Mr. JOHNSON: Yes.
NORRIS: …so to amplify their findings in some way to turn the temperature up?
Mr. JOHNSON: It was both. They started out with an idea of what they wanted to believe. They wanted to believe that Iraq posed a threat to the United States, they wanted to believe that Iraq was backing al-Qaeda and began looking for intelligence, pieces that would fit within that picture. That’s different from combing through the information and seeing what picture comes together by looking at the whole picture.
But the other part that was taking place was the analysts at CIA, I am told, did not believe that Iraq posed a threat, particularly with weapons of mass destruction, to the United States. And I am told that their attempt to put that line of analysis out was thwarted and, in fact, that the line of analysis backed by the Department of Defense Office of Special Plans went forward without a dissent. And these are the people charged with telling the president what’s going on, and any president is not in a position to comb through all these volumes of information. You have to rely upon people to give you the truth. And it would appear in this case that President Bush is being misled deliberately.
NORRIS: But intelligence, by its very nature, is secret, it’s covert and it’s…
Mr. JOHNSON: Sure…
NORRIS: …quite possible that there’s intelligence out there that we–and that would include you, since you are a former intelligence officer–have not been privy to; that since these weapons of mass destruction have not been found, we don’t know that the White House actually manipulated this data.
Mr. JOHNSON: One thing I learned in my first week on the job at CIA starting back in 1985, when we were presented with information that was considered very highly classified, top-secret information, must protect at all costs–and I was reading it within the next day or two in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Bush administration officials would have been running to the press if they had had the proof. The one thing we did not see going into the start of this war that I’ve seen in previous situations where we had clear intelligence of misdeeds by other governments or terrorist organizations, we would put together briefing teams, go overseas, brief foreign governments who were even opposed to our position and, by showing them the actual evidence, could sway them. What did not happen in this case is that case to other governments was not made, and the reason it wasn’t made is because the evidence did not exist.
NORRIS: What the administration might say also is that because of the way they operate, where much of the power is centralized, very close to the Oval Office, that some of these sour grapes may be coming from individuals who feel like they were cut out of the inner circle, that they’re not being listened to.
Mr. JOHNSON: No. In fact, some of the people I know are not–they are not directly in the process of having their views represented or misrepresented, but they are in a position to know what the positions are, to know what the intelligence is and to have a look at it. Look, I voted Republican. I’ll lay my political credentials on the table. I find this outrageous, and I think it is incumbent upon the US Congress to do something about it. I think it’s incumbent upon President Bush to do something about it, because these individuals that have been operating out of the Office of Special Plans at the Department of Defense, I think, represent a clear and present danger to the United States.
NORRIS: Larry Johnson, thank you very much for speaking with us.
Mr. JOHNSON: Thanks, Michele.
NORRIS: Larry Johnson is a former CIA and State Department intelligence analyst.
So here we are in 2008. We are not talking about Iraq, we are talking Obama. We are talking about a fatally flawed candidate for the Democratic nomination. We are talking about the problems with Barack Obama that will become painfully evident once the media decides to do its goddamn job. I am not letting this one go without a fight. The stakes are too high to allow an incompetent like Barack in the White House. But the media, once again, is playing the role of the enabler. Tends to make me cranky.
If you wanted to be treated as relevent you must bring relevence. As you don’t, we read you as the sophomoric mind you possess and with the simplistic reasoning you display … loser.
Ah..back when Larry Johnson was actually a serious human being.
You should consider being respectful of the blog owner.
Larry welcomes criticism but yours is not backed by anything of substance.
Back when you agreed with Larry he was a serious human being. Now that he no longer agrees with you cast him aside. The same skills that lead Larry to feel the war was unjustified are the same skills he is using to determine Obama is no good for America. Larry has not changed at all yet you have.
Since Larry was one of the few brave souls to stand up to Bush I would think you would seriously wonder why his opinion is so drastically different than yours now.
I’m happy to disagree with Larry Johnson, and at first considered his critiques of Obama to be informative and challenging. When he went from critic to McCarthyite and from McCarthyite to scumbag who uses the same tactics he rightfully decries in Bush’s pals, when he used to be intelligent on foreign policy but now throws that intelligence out the window in favor of the candidate who wants to obliterate Iran, when he plays divisive games and manipulates helpless insecure folks who populate this blog, when he plays on fears etc. - well he is a has been, a joke.
In your rush to justify your first statement you are taking Senator Clinton unfairly out of context.
She was replying to a question of what would she do if Iran nuked Israel. Did you expect her to have tea with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Obama only complained about her language and did not find it helpful. Your leader never said she “wants to obliterate Iran.”
when he plays divisive games and manipulates helpless insecure folks who populate this blog, when he plays on fears etc.
I am far from helpless and insecure and don’t see Larry playing on any fears at all. He is a true patriot and fighting for his country and what he believes in. A lot of people including myself agree with him that Obama would be a disaster as a president. I came to this conclusion a very long time before finding this blog. What I have found here is the hub of the resistance movement to being assimilated into your OBorg.
All you have done is further our resolve to make sure it is either Hillary or McCain. So as much as I regret taking the time to reply to you I do thank you for furthering my resolve.
History unexamined is doomed to repeat itself. With the media “soup du jour” approach to stories, we face a lot of potential doom. Thank you for your tenacity.
The Iraq war build up was the lowest point of American journalism in a least the last 50 years, if not ever.
Now the same players have failed miserably in examining Barack Obama. People know nothing about him! If it weren’t for Sean Hannity, a political opinionator, we wouldn’t even know about Obama’s religious participation.
It’s already started. Check out Hardball tonight.
Matthew’s is claiming the media did do there job. Stating that they “THE MEDIA” were manipulated. David Brooks sort of called him on it.
Don’t forget that it was the media who hated Clinton and Gore and were willing to repeat Republican lies about both of them, while ignoring Bush’s terrible flaws. They sold Bush to the public so they are largely responsible for him getting elected in the first place. That alone should tell people that their judgment about who is a good choice for president cannot be trusted.
Thanks for that flashback into the intelligence/medi clusterfuck of 2003. Of course this is the same disinformation and propoganda push that our new conglomerate media is so fond of.
As I just posted on another thread, I will not forget that the media is first and foremost a tool of the GOP. There is a reason why Roger Ailes moved into TV, and we saw what happened when the head of CNN went to the GOP and asked how they could be more responsive to them and their positions. Judith Miller and the “aspen trees” comes to mind.
I do believe that there is a combination of factors at work in the media in regard to pushing Obama.
1) There are truly some journalists lovestruck with the idea of Obama. But I think it’s a smaller number than people realize.
2) Corporate media needs to sell ads. They go where they think the public/pop culture is going. It’s called “Pepsi money”, and it’s the reason you can’t find a decent food or decorating show on TV anymore without a 20-something supermodel posing as an expert.
3) The Republicans are still controlling the media. It’s happened in 2000, happened in 2004. They will always champion the weakest candidate on the Dem side in the primaries, and help to knock out the real contenders. It happened with Kerry and Edwards. Edwards had the right down-home appeal to take on Bush, but was ridiculed by the media for very superficial things. Once the primary was over, then Kerry was ridiculed in the same way. Gore was ridiculed by the media in the same way, and painted as something so far from what he truly is. Now it’s Hillary’s turn. the republican controlled media has pushed Obama because McCain will have him for lunch in the GE.
There is a reason why Al Gore and Bill Clinton have both spoken out against the centralized, corporate, controlled media trend that started when Bush took office. We have a mediacracy, not a democracy.
As far as the cooked intelligence and the war, I’m afraid that is why I’d have a really really hard time voting for McCain. The whole lot of them are so fucking corrupt, and I cannot get the picture of McCain kissing Bush, out of my mind. It’s been said that McCain despises Bush with a passion, which means he has been glomming onto him for one reason only. To get elected.
So what exactly does a person do when faced with this? Other than keep fighting for Hillary? I do find it so weird that she has this cadre of heavy duty military brass behind her, and the media is totally silent about that. Oh.. wait.. I need to reread my own comment above.
At that time there were not a lot of people who were willing to stand against the tide. Larry was one.
The import of Scott’s book, in my mind is the accusation that the press failed to go after the truth. By their own somewhat dubious standards of being fair and balanced, and considering all sides, they failed their first amendment responsibilities.
How many times did they quote Joe Wilson, Brent Scowcroft, Tony Zinni, Zbig Brzezinski, Chas Freeman, Ned Walker, Wes Clark or others? How bout Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey, Cliff May, Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney.
And after you have run the numbers, ask yourselve how much experience the latter neocons actually have in national security matters, relative to the former. Bill Kristol was asked in a debate in Midland,TX, “How much time have you spent in the region (Middle East, Gulf) to which he replied “I’ve always believed that experience on the ground is highly overrated.” That says it all. Joe Wilson
The McClellan book offers insight to the White House knowingly helping break the law to corroborate testimony between witnesses.
How close to the OVP and President were there discussions?
Rove had no original clearance, his denial is grounds for finding who he learned from.
Fitzgerald is still empowered to prosecute.
This news could threaten Libby’s Commutation?
He was found guilty of intentionally breaking the law in outing an asset, making her career a pattern example to all would be whistle blowers.
He tries to claim poor memory, and a commutation of course applies to illegal activity past conviction.
His press conference, the lawyer spoke, can those words be scrutinized for consistency to what McClellan says Rove knew of?
If these people shared stories, then there are notes, because it was done in the White House. If no notes were taken then the Presidential Records act was broken. The Senior people in attendance should face the rule of law.
Thus his Commutation could see new evidence develop new charges. Charges after conviction would include wrongful statements by his lawyer on Scooter’s behalf(oh boy, there’s a wide stretch of discussion in its own right).
political propaganda campaign
and who was the mouth piece for all this earwax?
The idea of the MSM being a “self policing” entity and not beholden to the Public is painful.
I fully understand why it would make one “cranky”.
We know the moon is made from cheese, because Scotty was up at the poduim repeating what he knew to bold face lies. What did he do? Stated the obvious. Loyalty be damned. How much of the book was redacted? Like Valerie Wilson’s book?
Naw…not likely.
So I guess there will be on less rocking chair on Bushes porch for Scotty…eh Mr. Johnson?
Yes, when is Tim Russert going to apologize for his hand in promoting this war? Week after week he allowed, Cheney, Rice et all to come on his show and use it to spread to propoganda that “little scottie” is talking about. He (tim russert) kept asking Hillary when she was goin to apologize for her war vote…WHEN IS HE GOING APOLOGIZE. Wake up people, now he in his little band of OBAMABOTS at MSNBC at doing the same thing with the election. Enough is enough - we need to call them out at evey opportunity. great post.
The new reality is so simple. Hillary started the war. Braveheart Obama opposed it with all his might. Count him among those who spoke against the war at great cost to their careers. He wrote op-eds, gave speeches, attended rallies…He was a pillar of strength to us all. /sarcasm
As you know, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meets this Saturday in Washington, DC. If you feel that the Florida and Michigan voters should be given a voice in this election process, please e-mail the Committee before Saturday.
Also, attached is an Excel Spreadsheet with addresses for the Uncommitted SuperDelegates. Puerto Rico’s Primary is Sunday, June 1; the last two Primaries are on Tuesday June 3. At that time, there could be a massive SuperDelegate commitment and we want it to be for Hillary.
Already the media is starting to lay the groundwork to blame Hillary for Obama’s certain loss should he be the nominee against McCain…
——————————————————————————–
The drumbeat has been to get Hillary out of the race before it’s over (it isn’t, especially given the hesitation of superdelegates to embrace the “presumptive nominee” in the face of mounting evidence that he is an extremely weak general election candidate).
In addition, a chorus of voices, now tacitly admitting Obama has no chance in the fall, is claiming Clinton has deliver her (stronger) constituency by campaigning vigorously for Obama should he secure the nomination. As if she does not have a life and job and a family of her own to return to.
Quote:
The Fix chatted with a number of unaligned Democratic strategists about this theory and, to a person, they agreed that Clinton’s best course once she decides to end her bid is to become Obama’s top advocate.
“I think that when Obama is the nominee you will see Clinton campaign vigorously for him because she needs the ‘healing’ coefficient with Democratic insiders who view her as hurting the party more than she needs the ‘I told you so’ coefficient,” said Democratic pollster John Anzalone. “She is already viewed as a bad sport on the playing field, and she has lost supporters and insiders because of it. She needs to repair that and she can do that by being a big booster in the fall.”
…
she must transform herself into a fervent Obama advocate — leaving no question that she wants to see the Illinois senator elected president. As Matt Bennett, a former Clinton administration official, put it: “If she reveals that sh
They can force her to cheer lead for him all they want to. She and and everyone else knows he’s not ready or able to serve as CIC.
Larry,
Thank you for another great article and perspective. The more you post, the more obvious it is what a travesty this candidate and those who support him are.
The media must be held accountable for the role it has played.
Comment by workingclass artist
| 2008-05-28 13:38:47
If the DNC gives Obama his illegitimate nomination….They will side line Clinton as early as they can…They don’t want her or Bill to even be in the room with Barry…the comparison is too stark and works against Barry….
Funny. The comparison really IS too stark. On the one hand you have an honorable public servant upsetting the status quo and single-handedly trying to introduce a promising, albeit frightening for some, new paradigm into our politics. On the other side you have the old-school style of the politics of personal destruction and division courtesy of the masters: the hit-team known as Bill&Hillary Clinton. Frankly after her performance in this race, she’ll be lucky to retain her senate seat.
The idea of the Clintons anywhere near an Obama WH would be corrosive to the whole atmosphere as they would intentionally sabotage his reelection chances one way or the other, and aint ever gonna happen. Time moves on.
Comment by workingclass artist
| 2008-05-28 16:12:40
No Tony….On one side you have Obama a FASCIST OF LIMITED INTELLIGENCE AND HIS IQ CHALLENGED SUPPORTERS…And on the Other side you have Two Brilliant Public Servants who don’t rely on call centers in GAZA to get votes….
OBAMA THE FASCIST IS HEADED FOR POLITICAL OBLIVION
On one hand you have a weak, inexperienced candidate whose greatest achievement to date is writing two works of fiction and taking a bizarre amount of money which has been wasted to foist him upon the Democratic party where the only people with any history IN the party willing to vote for him are AA’s and uber liberals. Period. To his credit, he has performed the historical feat of dissecting the party and rendering it impotent. All to the benefit of the Republican party — which should have found itself weakened in view of two terms of George W. Bush.
On the other hand, you have an accomplished campaigner who seems to only gain strength from the campaign trail and has inspired women to see the sexism and fight against it where ever they find it. She has drawn attention to a biased and bought and sold media. She has a platform that includes everyone in it and doesn’t disenfranchise voters. If this is “old fashioned,” and if the new world is gaming caucus votes and stuffing ballot boxes, you better watch out, junior, cause you time will come.
So just a few days back they said they weren’t doing these tracking polls anymore because the campaign was “over” and Obama was the “winner”. Seems they are still doing these daily tracking polls. What crap were they spinning last week?!?
May 17:
Clinton: 44
Obama: 46
Given Obama’s massive media advantage (which probably gives him 10 points for nothing), Clinton’s 44% is exceptional.
Our new T-shirt plans for a group of women who are really pissed off about the treament of Hillary and a vowing not to vote for Obama unless she in on the ticket:
I’ve always been a devoted Democrat, but I feel totally out of touch with the party now. My hope is that, if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination or at least a vp spot on the ticket, that she will run as a third party candidate. I actually think she might win, since I feel virtually certain that Obama’s and McCain’s campaigns will implode. Do you think there’s any chance Hillary would consider this?
Our country has been so owned by this presidency. I held out hope that we would send him packing and replace him with somebody useful. Barack Obama would be the other side of George Bush’s extremist coin. So much for improvement.You can see what a smarmy SOB he is during this nomination process, you can see the kind of criminals he associates himself with. Imagine how owned this country would be with his ass in the oval office chair.
I never thought that seeing anybody’s face and hearing anybody’s voice would bother me more than Bush. Now I have found one who trumps him.
On May 28th, Larry Sinclair will be releasing a video/print anouncement that will make Obama supporters Livid!
——————————————————————————–
Quote:
Please look to this Blog Wednesday night May 28, 2008 for an announcement that is sure to make the Obama bloggers and supporters totally livid.
On the evening on May 28, 2008 I will publish on this blog a video and print announcement that is certain to send the cesspool (who has disregarded every law in this country) falling all over themselves in their illegal efforts to stop me from being heard.
I wonder what he is going to release? A secret sex tape? lol
I hope it’s something that is going to make the internet rounds…
Regardless of the barrage of media attention Barack Obama has received calling him “the inevitable nominee” for the Democratic Party… here are ten reasons why I believe Hillary Clinton will actually come out on top, despite what you hear.
1. The call for Hillary Clinton to drop out:
2. Barack the nominee:
3. The popular vote:
4. The Michelle Obama video:
I seem to recall that when it was determined that there were no WMD in Iraq a good number of “journalists” dove into introspection and loaded a lot of blame on themselves for “becoming the story” instead of “reporting the story” and for failing to question and investigate - a hard learned lesson they forgot very quickly.
Mr. Obama, when you attack Clintons, the American people don’t want to talk about issues any more?
Whenever people raise questions about your political background which reflects your political believes in a significant way – one of the MOST IMPORTANT issues in an election, you always wield the shield “American people want to talk about issues” to silence people; however, meanwhile, these “issues” do not stop you from wield your sword towards Clintons, no matter how trivial, how much ado with nothing Clintons’ comments were. It is ONLY when YOUR problem is being exposed when you yell “American people want to talk about issues
With great respect and appreciation for your work to wake up the media about Irag, Larry, there were many of us much less informed than you who were dubious about the so-called intelligence reported by Bush’s media. If someone’s been paying attention long enough, he or she can tell when the media is backing a loser. Albeit Iraq was more than a loser; the Iraq mistake has cost many lives, lots of money and it has besmirched the nation’s reputation.
And the media is once again backing a loser. What else can we do to stop this train wreck? If I knew, I’d do it.
I will try to help derail the Obama train if and when he becomes the nominee. The first priority for me and my wif is to find the shortest republican line we can to vote AGAINST Obama and his army of racist. I get omeprazole for my stomach from the VA. So I will just pop one and vote for McCranky.
The Arugulas are now all but admitting that an “ethnic cleansing” of the party is under way. Working class whites and Latinos are no longer wanted or welcome.
What’s going on is obvious. People are being honest. They truly do view people in KY and WVA as racist idiots.
That’s what incredibly sad about this election. The prejudices are out for all fo us to see.
It’s so amazing that this attitude even exists, because it’s so small-minded. Obviously, the elite are even more small-thinking than I’d ever imagined.
But then, when I look at how we’re getting our butts whipped in every single major market globally, I sort of get it.
Obama said it was “the silly season”. I see nothing silly about the people in Ky and WV voting for the best and most qualified candidate HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.
I refuse to read it.
BEKAS I KANT READ I AM FRUM KY AND A RASIST. IDONT NO ANYTHANG BOUT OBAMI, DONT HAVE CABLE OR THA INTERENETS. THAT THER COLORED FELLER OR THE WOMAN>>>HMMM?
Come on. Swing state voters are more moderate. We support Hillary because we vote for experience and FRANKLY we don’t like snobs not because we are racist. If Democrats in KY and WVA were racist, I think they would have switched parties long ago. Not that Republicans in Ky are racist either. But why work for minority rights if you are racist? And by the way, I hated when Wild Oats in Lexington was bought by Whole Foods. I am a Hillary supporter who shops at Whole Foods, OMG. Eastern KY has Organic stores too.
There are more working class whites, I am sure, than elite lefties in America.
The propaganda war to elect Obama POTUS is the third major involvement of the MSM pushing an agenda in recent memory. The MSM could not denigrate Gore enough and heaped irrational praise on GWB. Once the MSM signed on to the Iraq War, they could not have been bigger cheerleaders for military action.
Here it is 2008 and Obama is the latest and greatest thing the MSM can provide to us. What we need is a large consciousness raising effort to bring this subject more clearly to the American public. The MSM needs to be reigned in and go pack to reporting news, not creating news.
Every day, I am more aware of how prescient George Orwell was about the power of institutions to control our lives.
The profit motive is responsible for cutting us off from the information that is vital to make this country survive.
(Uno) Take Obama, for instance (Please, take him somewhere, anywhere!). Soros’ money primed the propaganda pump for certain, but it was the story THAT SOLD and cranked the post-Iowa hysteria. A young, black kid from the south side of Chicago makes good in his bid for President. Christ, you’d have to go all the way back to Mickey Rooney & Judy Garland (”Lets give a show!”) to find jejune bullshit that better plucks America’s heart strings. That story was paydirt.
(Dos) The concentration of capital resources in the hegemony of Time-Warner, News Corporation, Viacom and Disney makes it imperative that it be defended. You MUST have those frequencies assigned to you by the government and you MUST keep them at all costs. So how do you do it? Well if your news organizations don’t say nice things about those elected officials maybe they won’t be back on the next election cycle.
Alternatively, you can do favors (hint, hint) for those in power for not reporting damaging events or information that might get them tossed out of office.. “If it happens but you don’t hear about it, Did it happen?”
(Tres) Bill Paley found that he could make more money on The 64,000 Qustion than See It Now and get zero flack from it until the quiz show scandals hit. Paddy Chayefsky knew this and now his vision is complete except for Sybil The Soothsayer. None of it is news, all of it is entertainment. Bill O’Reilly, not Ed Murrow, sells.
Poor Big Media, you cannot totally blame the media for the information problem. The American people, in the odd instance when they are not self-absorbed or running Buffy over to soccer practice in the Hummer, act a lot of the time like they are dumber than retarded dog drool. Why shovel your best efforts into that vacuum?
I often read with interest and look for updates on the case (similar to the Plame case) of the former agent who was put on administrative leave in September 2003 and then fired from the CIA in September 2004 because he refused to change his intelligence findings about WMD’s to coincide with the popular theories for invading Iraq.
A federal judge has said he could continue with his case so when is it going to trial? When is this person going to be allowed to speak? Practically the entire lawsuit is classified. Apparently the CIA is afraid to allow the media anywhere near him. No pictures or artists renderings allowed. Sounds like he must be somebody very recognizable. Can we thank the media for that?
His lawyer says most of the details of the case are classified — not to protect national security but to conceal politically embarassing facts from public scrutiny. Gee, I wonder why Scotty hasn’t mentioned it?
Hi Teak. Yes it is another John Doe Case. But no John this time. Not even a first name, however having worked for IBM and knowing all about fonts and things, it sure looks to me like the redacted first name of DOE contains four letters. Hmmmmmmmm.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CASE NUMBER 1.04CV02122
Judge: Gladys Kessler
Plaintiff: ____ Doe
vs.
Porter Goss and
Central Intelligence Agency
A federal judge has said he could continue with his case so when is it going to trial? When is this person going to be allowed to speak?
So I wonder then, on what gounds was this individual was given standing. Classified material aside, I would think the principle and established case law that was supporting the plantiff’s standing, would warrent some kind of exposure.
The wiretap case in SF was public and the object of the complaint, a violation of constitutional rights.
Yet the person in this court has standing which a public case was denied?
You cranky, Larry? Don’t fucking worry about it. You’re doing your job - for people everywhere. You saw through the bullshit and you spoke out. And today you have a forum accessible internationally where people can get together over these issues. It’s like the Real United Nations.
You’re entitled to be cranky. As cranky as you like. Someone buy Larry a shot and a beer.
political propaganda campaign
and who was the mouth piece for all this earwax?
The idea of the MSM being a “self policing” entity and not beholden to the Public is painful.
I fully understand why it would make one “cranky”.
We know the moon is made from cheese, because Scotty was up at the podium repeating what he knew to bold face lies. What did he do? Stated the obvious. Loyalty be damned. How much of the book was redacted? Like Valerie Wilson’s book?
Naw…not likely.
So I guess there will be on less rocking chair on Bushes porch for Scotty…eh Mr. Johnson?
Larry I have a question. Are you saying we had enough info that countered the countless intel from the mid 90’s and beyond in our own Country, other Middle East intel, European intel,..etc, that lead up to the War, that would prove they were lying? I mean you would need some serious debunk to combat the decade worth of WMD reports. Not to mention bullshiting around with the UN Resolutions. I say instead of fighting the battle over whether this is Bush’s War, or a War our brave troops are fighting today, we can take that energy to support our troops. Which I know from experience that you do. If you want to play the blame game, I could go back to the 70’s and lay blame from the White House, Congress, CIA, and who ever else missed this fanatical extremists jihad that wants us all to convert or die. How did we miss that? We are paying for it now. I was against the Iraq War. I never believed we were in danger of WMD’s. I thought Saddam needed to go, but I wanted Bin Laden more, dead or….well, you know what I mean. Sorry if this came of as a rant, it got a little long. I enjoy your work, and would like your thoughts on why we were so in the dark with Islamic extremists. Thanks
I just wrote to the super delegates at support@lobbydelegates.com. Everyone should. This is what I wrote:
Dear Super Delegate,
I think popular vote is more important that delegate count. And qualifications and governing record should weigh most heavily on whom you support.
Barac Obama has almost no governing experience and less understanding of policy issues. Throughout the campaign, he seldom rose about empty rhetoric and only recited liberal cliches that will do nothing to solve current problems.
By contrast, the Clintons are the greatest policy experts of our time.
Hillary Clinton played a major role in formulating the national legislative agenda of the Clinton administration: which reversed damages of three republican administrations, turned deficit into surplus, created a massive economic boom, and improved nearly every statistic in the book.
Considering the serious problems we face, the Clinton’s vast knowledge and flawless reasoning are needed now more than ever.
For all these reasons, I urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton in your role of Super Delegate.
Gee, Scotty’s revelations have brought calls for the FBI to arrest Bush and Cheney. Better yet is that the dollar has already started to rally against the Euro. Something tells me the honchos in the EU might be having a little snicker right about now.
…..You were right then but you have since
discredited yourself with your ugly Hillary licking…..
Well John Doh, back THEN in 1997, 98 and 99, I was living in Austin, Texas. Yes, Bill Clinton was in the White House at the time but George W. Bush was in the Texas Governor’s House. Given Texas’ reputation for acting like a foreign country, I still don’t know what to make of it all. I have to vote for a Democratic candidate but unless somebody tells me the truth, I can’t really make an informed decision, can I?
This "terrifying tale of conspiracy and suspense" by Larry's friend Paul Evancoe, a former Navy SEAL, holds a rare 5-star rating by readers. The novel's SEAL heroes "find themselves targeted by two superpowers who will risk war to silence them": Own The Night
Treat your family to restaurant quality meals in the comfort of your own home. Shop Legal Sea Foods Today
Larry highly recommends this true story of the beneficial effects of SERE training on British soldiers captured in Iraq, and the horrific torture that they endured:
* Mondays - 9 p.m. ET: Sins Of Omission with Paulie Abeles (Politics, Sexism, Misogyny, Media Bias)
* Tuesdays - 9 p.m. ET: Nocturnal Warrior (Politics, Media Bias) * Sundays - 8 p.m. ET: Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle (Macro/Micro Economics, Politics) * Sundays - 10:30 ET: Larry Johnson joins the "experts panel" weekly on John Batchelor's nationally syndicated radio show. Listen via KFI-AM.
Join us at No Quarter Radio. Hear archived Podcasts on your PC/Mac via iTunes or iPod: Step 1:Download iTunes (PCs or Macs) at Mac.com:
Step 2: Open iTunes and click on the left-column iTunes Store link:
Step 3: In the upper-right search window, type this exactly: No Quarter Radio Podcast
Click the search result, "Subscribe," to auto-download No Quarter Radio shows. More help: iTunes tutorial.
CONGRATULATIONS to LARRY JOHNSON and all of our terrific writers for placing second in "Best Political Coverage"! And hearty thanks to all of you who voted for us! See results here.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Thanks, Larry!
You are our hero…….the wind beneath our wings (both the left and the right!)!!!!!!
Ah..back when Larry Johnson was actually a serious human being.
Did Larry have real hair back then, or was he sporting the toupee then as well?
If you wanted to be treated as relevent you must bring relevence. As you don’t, we read you as the sophomoric mind you possess and with the simplistic reasoning you display … loser.
You should consider being respectful of the blog owner.
Larry welcomes criticism but yours is not backed by anything of substance.
Back when you agreed with Larry he was a serious human being. Now that he no longer agrees with you cast him aside. The same skills that lead Larry to feel the war was unjustified are the same skills he is using to determine Obama is no good for America. Larry has not changed at all yet you have.
Since Larry was one of the few brave souls to stand up to Bush I would think you would seriously wonder why his opinion is so drastically different than yours now.
I’m happy to disagree with Larry Johnson, and at first considered his critiques of Obama to be informative and challenging. When he went from critic to McCarthyite and from McCarthyite to scumbag who uses the same tactics he rightfully decries in Bush’s pals, when he used to be intelligent on foreign policy but now throws that intelligence out the window in favor of the candidate who wants to obliterate Iran, when he plays divisive games and manipulates helpless insecure folks who populate this blog, when he plays on fears etc. - well he is a has been, a joke.
In your rush to justify your first statement you are taking Senator Clinton unfairly out of context.
She was replying to a question of what would she do if Iran nuked Israel. Did you expect her to have tea with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Obama only complained about her language and did not find it helpful. Your leader never said she “wants to obliterate Iran.”
I am far from helpless and insecure and don’t see Larry playing on any fears at all. He is a true patriot and fighting for his country and what he believes in. A lot of people including myself agree with him that Obama would be a disaster as a president. I came to this conclusion a very long time before finding this blog. What I have found here is the hub of the resistance movement to being assimilated into your OBorg.
All you have done is further our resolve to make sure it is either Hillary or McCain. So as much as I regret taking the time to reply to you I do thank you for furthering my resolve.
What as Larry said that is untrue in regard to Obama?
Same thing as Bush in terms of corruption, and an apocryphal press, Obama is a part of the IL combine, as corrupt as they come.
Are you this gullible?
You can’t say you agree in terms of Bush, and then say you don’t in the case of Obama, that is simply sophistry, or willful denial.
At the very least, it has been established Obama is corrupt, in conjunction with middle eastern players, and the IL combine.
READ Evelyn Pringle’s series, Operation Board Games.
Unless you’re waiting for Patrick Fitzgerlad to give his blessing.
Ohhhhhhh MAN! That is the Joe Wilson I remember and love!!
You can’t argue with a word he said.
And FUNNY!
It’s amazing any Obamabot would even try.
You have a WAVE behind you and it’s pretty tough and it’s pretty large!
THIS time you have mui help!
THANK YOU LARRY for being our lighthouse!
Well they will be pleased to know that the Democrats have found their weapons of mass destruction. We call them Barack and Michelle Obama.
LOL! I am loving it. WMD - Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Ayers, Auchi, Rezko, Odinga, Axelrod, Olbermann. . .
Good one!!!
WMD=Mr&MrsObama
Government, and war, by Omnicom Group.
You guys are doing a great job.
Really.
A great job.
Now get out of here.
Great.
Great great job.
Really.
No, really.
History unexamined is doomed to repeat itself. With the media “soup du jour” approach to stories, we face a lot of potential doom. Thank you for your tenacity.
The Iraq war build up was the lowest point of American journalism in a least the last 50 years, if not ever.
Now the same players have failed miserably in examining Barack Obama. People know nothing about him! If it weren’t for Sean Hannity, a political opinionator, we wouldn’t even know about Obama’s religious participation.
Btw, I think the press was and is fully informed in choosing to cooperate with these illegal efforts (the war, and Obama, maybe even Gore).
And I think fear of discovery drives the behavior of certain would be “journalists.”
If they’re exposed as shilling for a war they knew was false, they’re afraid they’ll go to jail, or be ruined.
As if they had any credibility to lose, anyway.
It’s already started. Check out Hardball tonight.
Matthew’s is claiming the media did do there job. Stating that they “THE MEDIA” were manipulated. David Brooks sort of called him on it.
Don’t forget that it was the media who hated Clinton and Gore and were willing to repeat Republican lies about both of them, while ignoring Bush’s terrible flaws. They sold Bush to the public so they are largely responsible for him getting elected in the first place. That alone should tell people that their judgment about who is a good choice for president cannot be trusted.
Desert Storm was just as bad.
We’ve actually had entirely substandard reporting for some time, Pres. Eisenhower tried to warn us….
GREAT POST LARRY.
SALUS POPULI SUPREMA EX ESTO
( LET THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE BE THE EXTREME LAW )
The media is trying to pick our candidate. We should all be very scared.
Thanks for that flashback into the intelligence/medi clusterfuck of 2003. Of course this is the same disinformation and propoganda push that our new conglomerate media is so fond of.
As I just posted on another thread, I will not forget that the media is first and foremost a tool of the GOP. There is a reason why Roger Ailes moved into TV, and we saw what happened when the head of CNN went to the GOP and asked how they could be more responsive to them and their positions. Judith Miller and the “aspen trees” comes to mind.
I do believe that there is a combination of factors at work in the media in regard to pushing Obama.
1) There are truly some journalists lovestruck with the idea of Obama. But I think it’s a smaller number than people realize.
2) Corporate media needs to sell ads. They go where they think the public/pop culture is going. It’s called “Pepsi money”, and it’s the reason you can’t find a decent food or decorating show on TV anymore without a 20-something supermodel posing as an expert.
3) The Republicans are still controlling the media. It’s happened in 2000, happened in 2004. They will always champion the weakest candidate on the Dem side in the primaries, and help to knock out the real contenders. It happened with Kerry and Edwards. Edwards had the right down-home appeal to take on Bush, but was ridiculed by the media for very superficial things. Once the primary was over, then Kerry was ridiculed in the same way. Gore was ridiculed by the media in the same way, and painted as something so far from what he truly is. Now it’s Hillary’s turn. the republican controlled media has pushed Obama because McCain will have him for lunch in the GE.
There is a reason why Al Gore and Bill Clinton have both spoken out against the centralized, corporate, controlled media trend that started when Bush took office. We have a mediacracy, not a democracy.
As far as the cooked intelligence and the war, I’m afraid that is why I’d have a really really hard time voting for McCain. The whole lot of them are so fucking corrupt, and I cannot get the picture of McCain kissing Bush, out of my mind. It’s been said that McCain despises Bush with a passion, which means he has been glomming onto him for one reason only. To get elected.
So what exactly does a person do when faced with this? Other than keep fighting for Hillary? I do find it so weird that she has this cadre of heavy duty military brass behind her, and the media is totally silent about that. Oh.. wait.. I need to reread my own comment above.
thanks for your observations. quite a mess eh?
We’ll make it through, our candidate isn’t done yet.
At that time there were not a lot of people who were willing to stand against the tide. Larry was one.
The import of Scott’s book, in my mind is the accusation that the press failed to go after the truth. By their own somewhat dubious standards of being fair and balanced, and considering all sides, they failed their first amendment responsibilities.
How many times did they quote Joe Wilson, Brent Scowcroft, Tony Zinni, Zbig Brzezinski, Chas Freeman, Ned Walker, Wes Clark or others? How bout Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey, Cliff May, Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney.
And after you have run the numbers, ask yourselve how much experience the latter neocons actually have in national security matters, relative to the former. Bill Kristol was asked in a debate in Midland,TX, “How much time have you spent in the region (Middle East, Gulf) to which he replied “I’ve always believed that experience on the ground is highly overrated.” That says it all. Joe Wilson
Thanks for your comment, Mr.Wilson.
The McClellan book offers insight to the White House knowingly helping break the law to corroborate testimony between witnesses.
How close to the OVP and President were there discussions?
Rove had no original clearance, his denial is grounds for finding who he learned from.
Fitzgerald is still empowered to prosecute.
This news could threaten Libby’s Commutation?
He was found guilty of intentionally breaking the law in outing an asset, making her career a pattern example to all would be whistle blowers.
He tries to claim poor memory, and a commutation of course applies to illegal activity past conviction.
His press conference, the lawyer spoke, can those words be scrutinized for consistency to what McClellan says Rove knew of?
If these people shared stories, then there are notes, because it was done in the White House. If no notes were taken then the Presidential Records act was broken. The Senior people in attendance should face the rule of law.
Thus his Commutation could see new evidence develop new charges. Charges after conviction would include wrongful statements by his lawyer on Scooter’s behalf(oh boy, there’s a wide stretch of discussion in its own right).
Accountability, we’re a nation of laws.
political propaganda campaign
and who was the mouth piece for all this earwax?
The idea of the MSM being a “self policing” entity and not beholden to the Public is painful.
I fully understand why it would make one “cranky”.
We know the moon is made from cheese, because Scotty was up at the poduim repeating what he knew to bold face lies. What did he do? Stated the obvious. Loyalty be damned. How much of the book was redacted? Like Valerie Wilson’s book?
Naw…not likely.
So I guess there will be on less rocking chair on Bushes porch for Scotty…eh Mr. Johnson?
So Scotty, a day late and a dollar. No kidding, He lied to us. I’m shocked I tell you.
that should be a dollar short.
signed, the world’s worse typist.
I think it’s amusing how they pull out the usual song and dance to discredit Scott, in full ye old Cheney PR management mode.
Nobody cares, everyone KNOWS the war is a load of shit, and everyone knows they couldn’t pull it off.
Too bad.
Really, like the Japanese soldier on Gilligan’s island, the war is over for Bush and Cheney, someone should tell them.
Someone else will have to clean the mess up, and rescue the idiots.
Both republican, and democratic.
Again.
Yes, when is Tim Russert going to apologize for his hand in promoting this war? Week after week he allowed, Cheney, Rice et all to come on his show and use it to spread to propoganda that “little scottie” is talking about. He (tim russert) kept asking Hillary when she was goin to apologize for her war vote…WHEN IS HE GOING APOLOGIZE. Wake up people, now he in his little band of OBAMABOTS at MSNBC at doing the same thing with the election. Enough is enough - we need to call them out at evey opportunity. great post.
Same with the New York Times, and Judith Miller.
Thankfully — Judith Miller did some jail time. Not for this reason — but it was so sweet that at least someone did some time!
The new reality is so simple. Hillary started the war. Braveheart Obama opposed it with all his might. Count him among those who spoke against the war at great cost to their careers. He wrote op-eds, gave speeches, attended rallies…He was a pillar of strength to us all. /sarcasm
They won’t. They will all run for cover. It’s all
ready started.
GOT THIS FRON HILLARYCLINTONFORUM.COM
FOR ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED
Email DNC for Florida and Michigan
——————————————————————————–
Email and call!
As you know, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meets this Saturday in Washington, DC. If you feel that the Florida and Michigan voters should be given a voice in this election process, please e-mail the Committee before Saturday.
Also, attached is an Excel Spreadsheet with addresses for the Uncommitted SuperDelegates. Puerto Rico’s Primary is Sunday, June 1; the last two Primaries are on Tuesday June 3. At that time, there could be a massive SuperDelegate commitment and we want it to be for Hillary.
RULES AND BY LAWS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Donna
Brazile
DC
donna@brazileassociates.com
(202) 628-8081
Mark
Brewer
MI
mbrewer@mi-democrats.com
(517) 371-5410
Martha Fuller
Clark
NH
martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us
(603) 271-6933
Ralph
Dawson
NY
rcdawson@fulbright.com
(212) 318-3337
Hartina
Flournoy
DC
tflourno@aft.org
(202) 393-6334
Donald
Fowler
SC
don@fowlercommunications.com
(803) 799-7550
Carol Khare
Fowler
SC
carol@fowlercommunications.com
(803) 799-7550
Yvonne
Gates
NV
YRG@co.clark.nv.us
(702) 455-0855
Alice
Germond
DC
germonda@dnc.org
(202) 863-7183
Jamie A.
Gonzalez, Jr.
TX
no2855748@gmail.com
(956) 664-0100
Janice
Griffin
VA
griffinassoc1@aol.com
(703) 248-1990
Alexis
Herman
DC
rramirez@alexisherman.com
(202) 833-8800
Alice
Huffman
CA
alicehuffman@sbcglobal.net
(916) 498-1890
Thomas
Hynes
IL
thynes@chapman.com
(312) 845-3272
Harold
Ickes
DC
hickes@ickesenright.com
(202) 887-6726
Ben
Johnson
DC
ben.johnson@porternovelli.com
(202) 973-5899
Elaine
Kamarck
MA
elaine_kamarck@harvard.edu
(617) 495-9002
Allan
Katz
FL
allan.katz@akerman.com
(850) 425-1605
Eric
Kleinfeld
DC
eric@rpum.com
(202) 293 1177
David T.
McDonald
WA
david.mcdonald@klgates.com
(206) 370-7957
Mona
Pasquil
CA
monapasquil@hotmail.com
(916) 567-2945
Mame
Reiley
VA
mame@thereileygroup.com
(703) 370-2891
James
Roosevelt, Jr.
MA
james_roosevelt@tufts-health.com
(617) 972-9564
Garry
Shay
CA
gss1@aol.com
(818) 502-7503
Elizabeth
Smith
DC
lsmith@aft.org
(202) 879-4436
Michael
Steed
DC
msteed@paladincapgroup.com
(202) 595-2960
Sharon
Stroschein
SD
stroschein@nrctv.com
(605) 226-3440
Sarah
Swisher
IA
seiusarah@msn.com
(319) 530-8364
Everett
Ward
NC
eward@dot.state.nc.us
(919) 733-2520
Jerome
Wiley Segovia
VA
jerome@puente-latino.com
(202) 360-3801
Vicki Campbell
Hillary Volunteer
vscampbell@jhu.edu
O/T
FROM HILLFORUM.COM
Already the media is starting to lay the groundwork to blame Hillary for Obama’s certain loss should he be the nominee against McCain…
——————————————————————————–
The drumbeat has been to get Hillary out of the race before it’s over (it isn’t, especially given the hesitation of superdelegates to embrace the “presumptive nominee” in the face of mounting evidence that he is an extremely weak general election candidate).
In addition, a chorus of voices, now tacitly admitting Obama has no chance in the fall, is claiming Clinton has deliver her (stronger) constituency by campaigning vigorously for Obama should he secure the nomination. As if she does not have a life and job and a family of her own to return to.
This thinking crept into an otherwise thoughtful article appearing on the Washington Post’s website today at http://www.blog.washingtonpost.com/thefi…so_factor.html
Quote:
The Fix chatted with a number of unaligned Democratic strategists about this theory and, to a person, they agreed that Clinton’s best course once she decides to end her bid is to become Obama’s top advocate.
“I think that when Obama is the nominee you will see Clinton campaign vigorously for him because she needs the ‘healing’ coefficient with Democratic insiders who view her as hurting the party more than she needs the ‘I told you so’ coefficient,” said Democratic pollster John Anzalone. “She is already viewed as a bad sport on the playing field, and she has lost supporters and insiders because of it. She needs to repair that and she can do that by being a big booster in the fall.”
…
she must transform herself into a fervent Obama advocate — leaving no question that she wants to see the Illinois senator elected president. As Matt Bennett, a former Clinton administration official, put it: “If she reveals that sh
I hope Clinton cripples Obama so bad politically he will have to beg for room and board with Rezko.
Not even Bill or Hillary could get me to vote for bo.
They can force her to cheer lead for him all they want to. She and and everyone else knows he’s not ready or able to serve as CIC.
Larry,
Thank you for another great article and perspective. The more you post, the more obvious it is what a travesty this candidate and those who support him are.
The media must be held accountable for the role it has played.
If the DNC gives Obama his illegitimate nomination….They will side line Clinton as early as they can…They don’t want her or Bill to even be in the room with Barry…the comparison is too stark and works against Barry….
Funny. The comparison really IS too stark. On the one hand you have an honorable public servant upsetting the status quo and single-handedly trying to introduce a promising, albeit frightening for some, new paradigm into our politics. On the other side you have the old-school style of the politics of personal destruction and division courtesy of the masters: the hit-team known as Bill&Hillary Clinton. Frankly after her performance in this race, she’ll be lucky to retain her senate seat.
The idea of the Clintons anywhere near an Obama WH would be corrosive to the whole atmosphere as they would intentionally sabotage his reelection chances one way or the other, and aint ever gonna happen. Time moves on.
No Tony….On one side you have Obama a FASCIST OF LIMITED INTELLIGENCE AND HIS IQ CHALLENGED SUPPORTERS…And on the Other side you have Two Brilliant Public Servants who don’t rely on call centers in GAZA to get votes….
OBAMA THE FASCIST IS HEADED FOR POLITICAL OBLIVION
On one hand you have a weak, inexperienced candidate whose greatest achievement to date is writing two works of fiction and taking a bizarre amount of money which has been wasted to foist him upon the Democratic party where the only people with any history IN the party willing to vote for him are AA’s and uber liberals. Period. To his credit, he has performed the historical feat of dissecting the party and rendering it impotent. All to the benefit of the Republican party — which should have found itself weakened in view of two terms of George W. Bush.
On the other hand, you have an accomplished campaigner who seems to only gain strength from the campaign trail and has inspired women to see the sexism and fight against it where ever they find it. She has drawn attention to a biased and bought and sold media. She has a platform that includes everyone in it and doesn’t disenfranchise voters. If this is “old fashioned,” and if the new world is gaming caucus votes and stuffing ballot boxes, you better watch out, junior, cause you time will come.
Really, running the US is so easy, even Obama, and Axelrod can do it.
Why, look at Bush.
Good luck.
Think he’s a mess now, (and he is, let’s be honest) wait until it gets really stressful.
Not only the rigors of the campaign, but the heat in regard to IL, and Fitzgerald.
WTH were they thinking, running Obama?
And if he was/is a drug user, he can’t handle it, emotionally, already.
Again, WTH were they thinking, running Obama?
O/T
FROM HILLFORUM.COM
Rasmussen Daily Tracking (National Polling): Clinton v Obama
——————————————————————————–
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c…olling_history
So just a few days back they said they weren’t doing these tracking polls anymore because the campaign was “over” and Obama was the “winner”. Seems they are still doing these daily tracking polls. What crap were they spinning last week?!?
May 17:
Clinton: 44
Obama: 46
Given Obama’s massive media advantage (which probably gives him 10 points for nothing), Clinton’s 44% is exceptional.
Our new T-shirt plans for a group of women who are really pissed off about the treament of Hillary and a vowing not to vote for Obama unless she in on the ticket:
” HELL NO WE WON’T O”
It would be disgraceful, to say the least, if Hillary Clinton had to be Obama’s VP. Even the thought is repulsive.
I’ve always been a devoted Democrat, but I feel totally out of touch with the party now. My hope is that, if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination or at least a vp spot on the ticket, that she will run as a third party candidate. I actually think she might win, since I feel virtually certain that Obama’s and McCain’s campaigns will implode. Do you think there’s any chance Hillary would consider this?
I think if Hillary accepted the VP spot , she would lose all her credibility and dignity. I just about know she would lose at least half her voters.
And thank you, Larry and Susan, for allowing the truth to be told here, at NQ.
FROM HILLFORUM ——START POLLING PLS,,IF U LIKE TO—
Please help Hillary on these 2 AOL Polls
——————————————————————————–
http://www.news.aol.com/?feature=20080528064609990001
With this story on aol
Who do you think will be the Democratic nominee?
Polls here need attention !
Barack Obama 74%
Hillary Clinton 26%
Total Votes: 18,342
Do you think all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be restored?
No 52%
Yes 43%
I’m not sure 5%
This is war my friends, this is a fight for democracy, nothing less, so the effort should be nothing less. We have the moral ground.
Our country has been so owned by this presidency. I held out hope that we would send him packing and replace him with somebody useful. Barack Obama would be the other side of George Bush’s extremist coin. So much for improvement.You can see what a smarmy SOB he is during this nomination process, you can see the kind of criminals he associates himself with. Imagine how owned this country would be with his ass in the oval office chair.
I never thought that seeing anybody’s face and hearing anybody’s voice would bother me more than Bush. Now I have found one who trumps him.
Compared to Obama, GW Bush is Father Teresa!
LOL…Irish….Obama is a MOFO FASCIST WITH A SEVERE CONFLICT WITH HIS INNER CRACKER…
I agree with you, Uppity, but I really fear for Israel, with Obama.
When they bid to control US politicians, those worldwide Jews haters, I worry.
I mean, Auchi?
Thought seems to be he purchased Obama’s house for him, made the loan.
And who KNOWS who is making the payments?
O/T FROM http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=129169#post129169
On May 28th, Larry Sinclair will be releasing a video/print anouncement that will make Obama supporters Livid!
——————————————————————————–
Quote:
Please look to this Blog Wednesday night May 28, 2008 for an announcement that is sure to make the Obama bloggers and supporters totally livid.
On the evening on May 28, 2008 I will publish on this blog a video and print announcement that is certain to send the cesspool (who has disregarded every law in this country) falling all over themselves in their illegal efforts to stop me from being heard.
I wonder what he is going to release? A secret sex tape? lol
I hope it’s something that is going to make the internet rounds…
UH-OH we better put on our surgical gloves for this !
VERY NICE ARTICLE
WORTH ARTICLE
http://www.politicalpyro.blogsome.com/2008/05/28/and-the-winner-is-hillary-clinton/
And the Winner Is: Hillary Clinton
Regardless of the barrage of media attention Barack Obama has received calling him “the inevitable nominee” for the Democratic Party… here are ten reasons why I believe Hillary Clinton will actually come out on top, despite what you hear.
1. The call for Hillary Clinton to drop out:
2. Barack the nominee:
3. The popular vote:
4. The Michelle Obama video:
and list goes on and on
pls vote for it at realclearpolitice
I seem to recall that when it was determined that there were no WMD in Iraq a good number of “journalists” dove into introspection and loaded a lot of blame on themselves for “becoming the story” instead of “reporting the story” and for failing to question and investigate - a hard learned lesson they forgot very quickly.
Mr. Obama, when you attack Clintons, the American people don’t want to talk about issues any more?
Whenever people raise questions about your political background which reflects your political believes in a significant way – one of the MOST IMPORTANT issues in an election, you always wield the shield “American people want to talk about issues” to silence people; however, meanwhile, these “issues” do not stop you from wield your sword towards Clintons, no matter how trivial, how much ado with nothing Clintons’ comments were. It is ONLY when YOUR problem is being exposed when you yell “American people want to talk about issues
http://www.itstheeconomys.blogspot.com/2008/05/mr-obama-when-you-attack-clintons.html
With great respect and appreciation for your work to wake up the media about Irag, Larry, there were many of us much less informed than you who were dubious about the so-called intelligence reported by Bush’s media. If someone’s been paying attention long enough, he or she can tell when the media is backing a loser. Albeit Iraq was more than a loser; the Iraq mistake has cost many lives, lots of money and it has besmirched the nation’s reputation.
And the media is once again backing a loser. What else can we do to stop this train wreck? If I knew, I’d do it.
I will try to help derail the Obama train if and when he becomes the nominee. The first priority for me and my wif is to find the shortest republican line we can to vote AGAINST Obama and his army of racist. I get omeprazole for my stomach from the VA. So I will just pop one and vote for McCranky.
Maybe they’ll open a Whole Foods in Appalachia.
The Arugulas are now all but admitting that an “ethnic cleansing” of the party is under way. Working class whites and Latinos are no longer wanted or welcome.
http://www.liberalrapture.com/2008/05/maybe-theyll-open-whole-foods-in.html
Oh come on…..this is silly.
What’s going on is obvious. People are being honest. They truly do view people in KY and WVA as racist idiots.
That’s what incredibly sad about this election. The prejudices are out for all fo us to see.
It’s so amazing that this attitude even exists, because it’s so small-minded. Obviously, the elite are even more small-thinking than I’d ever imagined.
But then, when I look at how we’re getting our butts whipped in every single major market globally, I sort of get it.
Small-minded thinkers aren’t very competative.
They’ll get their butts beaten.
So, we have work to do.
Obama said it was “the silly season”. I see nothing silly about the people in Ky and WV voting for the best and most qualified candidate HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.
I refuse to read it.
BEKAS I KANT READ I AM FRUM KY AND A RASIST. IDONT NO ANYTHANG BOUT OBAMI, DONT HAVE CABLE OR THA INTERENETS. THAT THER COLORED FELLER OR THE WOMAN>>>HMMM?
Come on. Swing state voters are more moderate. We support Hillary because we vote for experience and FRANKLY we don’t like snobs not because we are racist. If Democrats in KY and WVA were racist, I think they would have switched parties long ago. Not that Republicans in Ky are racist either. But why work for minority rights if you are racist? And by the way, I hated when Wild Oats in Lexington was bought by Whole Foods. I am a Hillary supporter who shops at Whole Foods, OMG. Eastern KY has Organic stores too.
There are more working class whites, I am sure, than elite lefties in America.
Controlling the press:
Michelle Malking gets Dunkin Donut ad featuring Rachel Ray removed from the air waves.
A reading from the Obama Scriptures for May 28, 2008.
Obama - the Book of Axelrod:
chapter 6
verse 66
http://www.liberalrapture.com/2008/05/reading-from-obama-scriptures-for-may_28.html
So, why did we invade, destroy Iraq, then?
And how many died?
Over a million Iraqis?
The propaganda war to elect Obama POTUS is the third major involvement of the MSM pushing an agenda in recent memory. The MSM could not denigrate Gore enough and heaped irrational praise on GWB. Once the MSM signed on to the Iraq War, they could not have been bigger cheerleaders for military action.
Here it is 2008 and Obama is the latest and greatest thing the MSM can provide to us. What we need is a large consciousness raising effort to bring this subject more clearly to the American public. The MSM needs to be reigned in and go pack to reporting news, not creating news.
Every day, I am more aware of how prescient George Orwell was about the power of institutions to control our lives.
I’m more amazed at the mediocrity.
Couldn’t they see what would happen?
Apparently not, I wonder what all three of those events have in common, Gore trashed, the war and Obama?
Who are the players, in addition to the flaming moronic incompetents?
Oh, and they are…
The profit motive is responsible for cutting us off from the information that is vital to make this country survive.
(Uno) Take Obama, for instance (Please, take him somewhere, anywhere!). Soros’ money primed the propaganda pump for certain, but it was the story THAT SOLD and cranked the post-Iowa hysteria. A young, black kid from the south side of Chicago makes good in his bid for President. Christ, you’d have to go all the way back to Mickey Rooney & Judy Garland (”Lets give a show!”) to find jejune bullshit that better plucks America’s heart strings. That story was paydirt.
(Dos) The concentration of capital resources in the hegemony of Time-Warner, News Corporation, Viacom and Disney makes it imperative that it be defended. You MUST have those frequencies assigned to you by the government and you MUST keep them at all costs. So how do you do it? Well if your news organizations don’t say nice things about those elected officials maybe they won’t be back on the next election cycle.
Alternatively, you can do favors (hint, hint) for those in power for not reporting damaging events or information that might get them tossed out of office.. “If it happens but you don’t hear about it, Did it happen?”
(Tres) Bill Paley found that he could make more money on The 64,000 Qustion than See It Now and get zero flack from it until the quiz show scandals hit. Paddy Chayefsky knew this and now his vision is complete except for Sybil The Soothsayer. None of it is news, all of it is entertainment. Bill O’Reilly, not Ed Murrow, sells.
Poor Big Media, you cannot totally blame the media for the information problem. The American people, in the odd instance when they are not self-absorbed or running Buffy over to soccer practice in the Hummer, act a lot of the time like they are dumber than retarded dog drool. Why shovel your best efforts into that vacuum?
I often read with interest and look for updates on the case (similar to the Plame case) of the former agent who was put on administrative leave in September 2003 and then fired from the CIA in September 2004 because he refused to change his intelligence findings about WMD’s to coincide with the popular theories for invading Iraq.
A federal judge has said he could continue with his case so when is it going to trial? When is this person going to be allowed to speak? Practically the entire lawsuit is classified. Apparently the CIA is afraid to allow the media anywhere near him. No pictures or artists renderings allowed. Sounds like he must be somebody very recognizable. Can we thank the media for that?
His lawyer says most of the details of the case are classified — not to protect national security but to conceal politically embarassing facts from public scrutiny. Gee, I wonder why Scotty hasn’t mentioned it?
Hey Centrocitta, good to here from ya. Hope all is well.
Is this another John Doe case? What court / circuit is is it being held in?
Hi Teak. Yes it is another John Doe Case. But no John this time. Not even a first name, however having worked for IBM and knowing all about fonts and things, it sure looks to me like the redacted first name of DOE contains four letters. Hmmmmmmmm.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CASE NUMBER 1.04CV02122
Judge: Gladys Kessler
Plaintiff: ____ Doe
vs.
Porter Goss and
Central Intelligence Agency
A federal judge has said he could continue with his case so when is it going to trial? When is this person going to be allowed to speak?
So I wonder then, on what gounds was this individual was given standing. Classified material aside, I would think the principle and established case law that was supporting the plantiff’s standing, would warrent some kind of exposure.
The wiretap case in SF was public and the object of the complaint, a violation of constitutional rights.
Yet the person in this court has standing which a public case was denied?
Thanks for the heads up.
…..Yet the person in this court has standing which a public case was denied? Thanks for the heads up…..
Yes, the public case is denied. And this plaintiff is an AMERICAN CITIZEN!
You cranky, Larry? Don’t fucking worry about it. You’re doing your job - for people everywhere. You saw through the bullshit and you spoke out. And today you have a forum accessible internationally where people can get together over these issues. It’s like the Real United Nations.
You’re entitled to be cranky. As cranky as you like. Someone buy Larry a shot and a beer.
political propaganda campaign
and who was the mouth piece for all this earwax?
The idea of the MSM being a “self policing” entity and not beholden to the Public is painful.
I fully understand why it would make one “cranky”.
We know the moon is made from cheese, because Scotty was up at the podium repeating what he knew to bold face lies. What did he do? Stated the obvious. Loyalty be damned. How much of the book was redacted? Like Valerie Wilson’s book?
Naw…not likely.
So I guess there will be on less rocking chair on Bushes porch for Scotty…eh Mr. Johnson?
Larry I have a question. Are you saying we had enough info that countered the countless intel from the mid 90’s and beyond in our own Country, other Middle East intel, European intel,..etc, that lead up to the War, that would prove they were lying? I mean you would need some serious debunk to combat the decade worth of WMD reports. Not to mention bullshiting around with the UN Resolutions. I say instead of fighting the battle over whether this is Bush’s War, or a War our brave troops are fighting today, we can take that energy to support our troops. Which I know from experience that you do. If you want to play the blame game, I could go back to the 70’s and lay blame from the White House, Congress, CIA, and who ever else missed this fanatical extremists jihad that wants us all to convert or die. How did we miss that? We are paying for it now. I was against the Iraq War. I never believed we were in danger of WMD’s. I thought Saddam needed to go, but I wanted Bin Laden more, dead or….well, you know what I mean. Sorry if this came of as a rant, it got a little long. I enjoy your work, and would like your thoughts on why we were so in the dark with Islamic extremists. Thanks
I just wrote to the super delegates at support@lobbydelegates.com. Everyone should. This is what I wrote:
Dear Super Delegate,
I think popular vote is more important that delegate count. And qualifications and governing record should weigh most heavily on whom you support.
Barac Obama has almost no governing experience and less understanding of policy issues. Throughout the campaign, he seldom rose about empty rhetoric and only recited liberal cliches that will do nothing to solve current problems.
By contrast, the Clintons are the greatest policy experts of our time.
Hillary Clinton played a major role in formulating the national legislative agenda of the Clinton administration: which reversed damages of three republican administrations, turned deficit into surplus, created a massive economic boom, and improved nearly every statistic in the book.
Considering the serious problems we face, the Clinton’s vast knowledge and flawless reasoning are needed now more than ever.
For all these reasons, I urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton in your role of Super Delegate.
Gee, Scotty’s revelations have brought calls for the FBI to arrest Bush and Cheney. Better yet is that the dollar has already started to rally against the Euro. Something tells me the honchos in the EU might be having a little snicker right about now.
…..You were right then but you have since
discredited yourself with your ugly Hillary licking…..
Well John Doh, back THEN in 1997, 98 and 99, I was living in Austin, Texas. Yes, Bill Clinton was in the White House at the time but George W. Bush was in the Texas Governor’s House. Given Texas’ reputation for acting like a foreign country, I still don’t know what to make of it all. I have to vote for a Democratic candidate but unless somebody tells me the truth, I can’t really make an informed decision, can I?