Now for Something Completely Different
By 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 June 12, 2008 at 9:46 PM in Current Affairs
For those of you sick to death of the political back and forth and the bashing of Barack, here’s a change of pace. Two stories hit today relevant to the question of terrorism and the future of US policy in the middle east.
Story 1–A majority of US Supreme Court Justices ruled that people detained as terrorists at Guantanmo can seek judicial remedy. CNN has a nice summary (here) and I am sure all of the major news dailies will weigh in.
Story 2–A US predator air strike (may have been Global Hawk) killed some Taleban and some Pakistani soldiers. According to the Times of London:
The Pakistan military has accused US-led forces in Afghanistan of launching an “unprovoked and cowardly” missile attack on an army checkpoint in Pakistan’s volatile Mohmand tribal zone, further straining ties between the two allies in the ‘War on Terror’.
So what does this mean?
Some folks on the right, including prominent politicians (Lindsay Graham, for example) are having a melt down. They view this as the Supreme Court requiring the U.S. military to conduct themselves like members of Law and Order’s Special Victims Unit. I understand their concern that we do not want our soldiers in a position of having to think and operate like law enforcement personnel.
But I think the majority of the Supreme Court made the right call. The United States is conducting itself in a manner that we once condemned when the Soviets and Cubans grabbed someone, declared them an enemy of the state, and threw them into prison without access to a judge or the ability to defend themselves and challenge their accusers.
The notion that the terrorist threat is more dangerous and more difficult than anything we have faced previously betrays a shocking ignorance of World War II and the conduct of the Japanese and the Germans. At the end of the day, the trials for War Crimes helped solidify our nation’s status–justifiably so–as an international leader and world power.
I think our conduct in Guantanamo is simply allowing tyrants in places like Cuba and Zimbabwe to excuse their own egregious conduct by pointing at us. We are capable of better and should not surrender our nation’s honor to a bunch of piss-ant terrorists and religious fanatics.
Our killing of Pakistani soldiers goes in the category of “too damn bad.” The Pakistani military and intelligence service has elements who are aiding our enemies. No two ways about it. Killing a few helps send a clear message. If you are going to fire on U.S. troops expect to pay with your life. This may sound a bit harsh, but if that was your son or daughter on that patrol I doubt you would shed a tear for the deaths of those who were helping shoot at your loved one. We have a long term problem in Pakistan and will have to tread carefully. Nonetheless, there is a time for sending a lethal message.
What do you think?
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Eastern Afghanistan is like North Vietnam while Pakistan is like China in terms of funneling military support to the Taliban fighting the Afghan government and its NATO allies. Until Pakistan gets its act together and stops all support to the Taliban, the war there will continue to drag on.
And given Obama’s leanings, I seriously doubt an Obama adminstration will seriously challenge Pakistan to do anything about its support for the Taliban. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they withdrew all support for the Afghan government and allowed the Taliban to retake Afghanistan and reestablish Al Qaeda camps in it.
I tell you, when I read that Obama is having pakistani citizens raise money for him, that was the limit for me. I find pakistan to be the most offensive place in the middle east. They are the most vile of people in their treatment of women. They set them on fire. SO many women have been aflame in pakistan, the hospitals can’t even keep up. Should the women live, they are treated as if they did something to deserve it. A woman in pakistan doesn’t even have to be set flame by her husband. It can be her inlaws if they are so disposed. This is a vile place and being buddies with one of those guys gives me the chills. Sick bastards. If they would do that, they would do anything. So I’m with you on this one Larry.
Technically, Pakistan is not part of the Middle East. But yes, they are despicable in terms of their treatment of women.
Obama has ties to important people in Pakistan going back to his college days. These need to be looked into.
Greg Mortenson is doing TERRIFIC things in Pakistan to educate girls. His thinking is that if you get a girl an education until fifth grade, you improve the quality of life not just for that girl, but for her children and her family. If she can read, she can take important nutritional and health steps to fight infant mortality, etc. If you want to really help Pakistani women from the ground up, read Three Cups of Tea and donate to Greg’s charity. It is so well run. He has declined any US government help since it would 1) make him suspect in Pakistan and 2) make him less effective overall with needing to cut through US red tape. But he’s doing FABULOUS things.
I think Obama Bin Forgotten is in Pakistan.
Guantanmo is a national disgrace. We should have never had anything that could legitimately be compared to the Soviets Siberia.
Those you see following the Obamessiah are not Democrats, though the species may try to look similar. They are in fact nothing but JACKASSES!
P.U.M.A.
So what would you do with these people?
Their countries of origin don’t want them.
They’re TERRORISTS, for Christ’s sake…
HELLOOOO………..
I know, let’s give them full US citizenship (which this idiot Supreme Court just about did) and their terrorist-loving lawyers can get them off on bullshit technicalities and we’ll release them into YOUR community.
Thank you! This decision makes our country look like a sappy bunch of mollycoddlers. I’m against torture, but I’m also against giving terrorists immigration priority.
I think unless we take a bold step and actually start rebuilding Afghanistan, starting with the schools. The war there will never end. Congress had the chance to do this after the soviets were kicked out of there and they have a chance to do it now. But one thing everybody has to realize that this will not be resolved over night. It will take 10 to 15 years to fix the problem over there.
For a long time I thought that we should just get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but reality has a way of slapping one in the face. At the moment leaving from Iraq or Afghanistan would just cause us to have to go back there in few years.
That supreme court ruling was a disgrace! The PUMA/Conservative coalition will make sure that kind of pandering to the left will not happen again! John McCain will ensure that only strict constructionist judges are elected to the highest court. We must protect life and country!
The PUMA/Conservative alliance for John McCain and a new republican majority!
Oh, I soooo hate to bust your bubble, little O-Troll, but your guy was all for confirming John Roberts as chief justice, until it was pointed out to him that a vote for Roberts would come back to bite him in his future run for president as a Democrat.
Barack Obama is a right wing Trojan horse.
And you’re a fool.
Obama is the only candidate who wants to focus on al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. As Obama said, if we have actionable intelligence on the locations of A-Q leadership and the Pakistanis aren’t willing to act, we will.
Obama ‘08
Do you guys even read the news? Remember when Obama was given days of criticism for his talks about invading Pakistan? Eh, maybe not. Of course, let’s focus on that story and not the one that shows how diametrically opposed Obama and McCain are about Habeus Corpus and how the SC decision down party lines shows the importance of rejecting an anti-civil liberties President when up to three of the more liberal judges may step down during the next administration.
The Founding Fathers would be so proud of you guys.
Shaaanne! DON’T come back, Shaaaane!
Habeus Corpus lives!
Obama ‘08
What do I think?
I cheer and say a big “Hell Yeah!!!!!!” every time we use predator drones to kill terrorists and their sympathizers.
Let them bastards run scared, worried that an unseen drone may be hovering over their heads, ready to blow them to kingdom come.
In fact, after I’m done raising my son, I’d like to enlist and be part of the Predator drone team with my hands on the joystick.
Don’t forget kids… Larry is the terrorism expert!
Well, he’s certainly more of an expert than YOU are.
I rather doubt you could pass the entrance exam, let alone manage the physical exertion.
You sound more like a cheeseburger expert at Burger King.
DING FRIES ARE DONE
Hope … he probably wants to supersize it!
I thought that was a great article.
Interesting post.
Today I showed my university students the propaganda film The Triumph of the Will, made in 1934 by Leni Riefenstahl. The class is on rhetoric and the film is considered a masterpiece of visual rhetoric.
My students were stunned by this film. It is so powerful, so beautifully made with scenes of children and villages, of people so inspired by and grateful to the vision of a “new” Germany.
The dramatic irony of watching it and knowing how the story turns out is almost too much to take. While watching smiling village children, running along the parading Nazis, one can’t help but mentally flash forward to the piles of human bodies found at the concentration camps.
Two things: Gitmo has destroyed our Geneva cred.
With allies like Pakistan, who needs Iran?
In Hamadan, the Supreme Court held that Guantanamo detainees are to accorded prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions. Todays decision says that those same detainees are to be accorded rights under the Constitution reserved for citizens and non-citizens residents of the US in the criminal justice system. These two decisions are contradictory in that POW status does not accord the detainee any rights under the detaining country’s legal system. The issue thus is not settled since the opinion handed down today did not explicitly over rule the opinion in Hamadan.
haven’t had a chance to read it. was this even addressed in the opinion?
My sane half and I spent the morning going threw the Supremes decision.
I found the minority opinion disturbing on two levels. They did not want to take the case in the first place and their opinions where made from a statutory position.
What was most telling of all was the look on GW’s face. Good luck getting any of it done on his watch…
He was not a happy camper. igit.
For more info, see http://www.fightthesmears.com.
No thanks. We don’t march with the borg.
You will be assimilated.
(Apologize for the fairly obvious comeback…)
We know by now there are no original thoughts coming out of the Obama camp. This happens all the time.
RAWWWRR!!!
The next time you go to your grocery store and there isn’t any tin foil, don’t say we didn’t tell you in advance.
No votes for you, Obama!
The KING of smears is worried about smears???
hahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Live by the smear; die by the smear!
on the lighter side, one of our troops @ work:
http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=467852
via vetvoice.org
Sleep. Sleep. Sleep, little Borg.
I come out pretty much on the same page. I was glad to hear about the ruling. That also made me feel a bit better about the judges appointed that tend to be more conservative, too.
I agree about the fall-out of the bombing, too.
I’m not sick of obama bashing.
Obama birth certificate -> 400+ posts
critical Supreme Court decision -> 30 posts
it’s all about substance here
That’s what’s got the troll panties in a wad. Go read who’s there you tilly sroll!
When Rome burns, people like Larry Johnson popup.
Your continuing efforts to get John McCain elected President, which will allow him to appoint more conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, who will overturn this terrible decision and get rid of this antiquated principle of habeas corpus, which is so foreign to American values that it doesn’t even have an English name, not unlike Barack Obama, is to be congratulated. Keep up the good work.
We already lost habeus corpus, you idiot. Sure. Obama is going to bring it back, because the hard line left has been so passionate about civil liberties.
Right after they run out of baseball players on steroids.
lmao.
Amen, Hope!!
All those establishment Democratic leaders supporting Obama like Daschle and Kerry and Rockefeller are the VERY ones who ENABLED every single illegal act George W. Bush enacted.
If we want to CHANGE things, we need to clean out the compliant Democrats, too.
Let’s start with Nancy Pelosi.
I was just arguing about the potential for Armageddon arising from Zbig’s machinations in Pakistan v. the war drums being beat for Iran right now. You know, the 911 truthers and antisemites are going nuts about “AIPAC’s latest war in the Middle East.” Iran is still enriching for whatever reasons; Pakistan already has nukes. Their government is a very fragile dictatorship with a strong military. Destabilizing that region would be suicidal.
Obama’s comments before freaked me out, and I’ll be amazed if older Jews vote for him knowing what is known about Brezinski. Not only does he hate Jews, but he was quoted as saying the Islamofascist threat was a small price to pay for the fall of the Soviet Empire. I’m sure that helps everyone sleep better in Tel Aviv.
Here are some of my comments which I wanted to paste together cohesively, anyway…
This guy was going on and on about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran and WWIII and McBush, and I said, “WWIII is more likely to happen if we allow Obama to invade Pakistan.” Then he replied:
We’ve already “invaded” Pakistan according to our latest agreement with them, we have preemptive rights to attack “Osama” within their borders and have special operation troops inside Pakistans borders as of many months ago. They’ve even capture and “extridited” (sic) a few terrorists already.
So, I pointed out we were conducting targeted missile attacks under Clinton. He jokes that while the Lewinski affair was blowing up, he was sleeping on the couch and planning to capture OBL. It is not an attack, if we have Pakistan’s permission to seek out terrorists within their borders. We have been doing that with special ops forces in cooperation with the ISI.
This guy kept going on about Iran and Israel’s top defense minister said such and such… I really don’t see mushroom clouds and the end of the world coming out of this. It has long seemed an inevitability that we would see an attack on Iran during this administration and certainly as close to the election as possible. Obama should post something about this on his “smear” website - they started a war to make me look weak on national security.
Moving right along…
If a US break with Musharraf and/or a real democratic opening in Pakistan merely pave the way for unilateral US or NATO aggression, we could be going very quickly from the frying pan to the fire. Pakistan remains the most dangerous country in the world today — and like the ticking clock that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists used to post on how close the world was to midnight, thus we are closer to a nuclear war there than with Iran.
Obama is surrounded by stranger friends than AIPAC, and I don’t mean Ayers/Wright/ Khalidi. Zbig is an infamous Cold War hawk who has managed to re-invent himself in the eyes of some dupes by opposing the Iraq adventure, mainly because it is bad for imperialism.
Senator Jay Rockefeller and Trilateral / Bilderberger boss Joseph Nye are also actively campaigning for Obama. Nye is the theoretician of “soft power,” a new form of imperialist aggression based on economic warfare, subversion, deception, and people power coups. They want Obama to mobilize soft power to give a face lift to US imperialism.
Brzezinski’s goal is confrontation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the main world center for resistance to US-UK global domination.
Anti-war activists are still fixated on Iran, but not Brzezinski is not - his target is China, TWENTY times bigger than Iran, with ICBMs ready to launch, followed by Russia, the world’s biggest nuclear power. Such confused activists need to focus on stopping the next war - the final global showdown with Pakistan, China, and Russia. That means rejecting Brzezinski’s puppet candidate Obama.
Then this guy quoted Ron Paul: The biggest threat today is not necessarily a country but an idea that you can spread democracy (or any other ideology) using the barrel of a gun. BTW, I think a lot of theRon Paul people more motivated by (and misinformed on) the antiwar movement instead of the libertarians, went over to Obama. These supporters were sensitive on race, antisemitic and sexist. The abusive comments began before the Ron Paul campaign imploded in NH.
My response:
What you described, the notion of “making the world safe for democracy” is Wilsonian foreign policy. It has now returned to its roots in the Democratic party with Obama as the presumptive nominee.
Anticommunist sentiment and Carter’s Afghanistan. Brzezinski in bed with the right-wing, “Freedom House” (”America House”, get it?!) Anthony Lake. Azer Commerce (ie OIL). In the mid and late 1990s you could track all three of them to one place. What do Charlie Wilson, Brzezinski and Azerbaijan have in common? Afghan Mujahideen. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
Make no mistake that Iran is our enemy now as they arm Iraqi insurgents, fund Hamas and arm Hezbollah. They are enriching at a rapid pace, though no one knows why. It’s even made the Saudis nervous; they always had proxy control through Pakistan’s nukes and controlling our intelligence through their petrodollar funding for CIA black ops banned by the Democratic Congress… under Jimmy Carter. That is how US intel defected to the private sector and these arms dealers came into power, the very same network of rogue spooks, corrupt bankers, and mercenary weapons designers was the seed from which BCCI, Iran-Contra, and 9-11 sprang.
This next administration is charged with cleaning up that mess. It also presents an opportunity for the ruthless seekers of power who manipulated an inexperienced and idealistic George W. Bush to put another puppet in the White House. Barack Obama is a Trojan Horse. When John McCain sings of bombing Iran, that is tough talk for the mullahs’ benefit. Bush tried talking tough but had no idea of how to follow through. Neither does Obama.
Not all of us who supported Clinton did so because we saw her as an Eleanor Roosevelt up against a new JFK. National security is on the line, and following another learn- as-you-go President into the wilderness is too dangerous, especially when he is being advised by someone who said, “What is the most important thing when you look at world history, the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? Some excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” Where do you see the next WWIII happening now?
I really appreciate that you took the time to write this.
I don’t know where to begin with all this stuff. There is more funny business too with Soros and his involvement in the Rose Revolution. Zbig and The American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC) at Freedom House. Assuming of course that this is not just about Caspian Oil. The Islamic terror threat also appears to be popping up in the Caucasus after these so called revolutions (there have been many, I mention the Rose Revolution because it is widely accepted that Soros funded it). And of course these “wahhabi radicals” are coming from Russia.
It all fits together and is very suspicious.
This article is an interview with Brzinski that you might find interesting. I can’t tell you how much he freaks me out with his uncanny resemblance to Doctor Strangelove.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30038.html
I want to follow through on how Soros fits into this more, because I’ve heard his name thrown around but not really thought much about his interests outside of currency manipulation.
I totally agree. I have not been able to piece this all together yet but frankly, I had a dream - yes a dream. I kept asking myself why Obama? I woke up thinking about Eduard Shevardnadze (this sounds so silly), but I thought I would look him up in the news and see what he’s been up to. Well, it lead to Soros and it lead to a lot of other things too. The pipelines, rail and Russian oil. This is also really interesting, go down to “the merger” and read down from there.
Look up Mikhail Khodorkovsky on Wiki, that is where is quote is from
Like I said, I can’t quite put it all together yet but smell it if you know what I mean.
Is this the same Michael Chodorovsky? Because I’ve read his essays on the Caspian pipeline and the remapping of the Middle East.
Yes, I think so YUKOS Oil - This is the wiki address
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
What was the Essay? Is it online?
Sorry… It was Michel Chussodovsky I was thinking of.
Here is the link, anyway. It is about the remapping of the Middles East, oil, and it has some helpful diagrams.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
Thanks for the link. I see what you mean by a lot of pieces to fit together.
You too - Thanks. Look up Yushchenko & his wife too. That gets really interesting.
Also, I just wanted to say thanks, the link is great.
Also, I cut and paste pretty freely from the internet. I should be more responsible about linking sources, but I think the writers I’m sourcing have in many instances done the same thing. This is more for the purpose of thinking out loud than making assertions.
It is not an attack, if we have Pakistan’s permission to seek out terrorists within their borders.
*invasion
Larry: I think it’s tough issues but I think you’ve made convincing arguments. Thanks for sharing.
Think we’d do better to have them blame a neighbor like India before they do the USA.
Might as well go with the Brzez model and use regional rivalries for strategic purpose….
The only problem is blowback. We armed and trained the muhajideen in the 70s, and now we have Islamofascists who want to kill us. Look at the disaster the Carter administration was. We do not want to stir up conflict for our own selfish reasons just to antagonize two superpowers. That’s just crazy. It is better to keep allies like Pakistan, even if they spend our foreign aid on fighting with India.
Thanks for the update and your return to sanity. More please.
Meanwhile the UK is also having a controversy gin up on the window of days detention can be allowed.
Some claim this is for technical aspects of evidence gathering, the time needed to secure password encryption. It’s entirely doubtful Menworth can’t descramble something far faster than that.
TWN has the story in greater detail using the PM’s appearance to Parliament on BBC.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/06/cameron_does_a/#comments
This is plausible cover for the Bush White House,
something is pending that could get into news cycles, this extra month or so may well push some item past the window of an election when coupled with other matters of process.
This comes on the heels of our own SCOTUS decision.
Connect the dots….
I think the Court ruling was reasonable. This is at the heart of separation of powers. Like a case from decades ago held that the wife of a military man overseas was entitled to a jury trial despite being tried by a military tribunal. The point is that no branch of law is above the Constitution.
The military can still set up its own procedures to diminish the amount of meritless writs. Like in Hamdi, the court suggested steps courts could take to ensure due process while balancing security interests.
The point about being held overseas turned out to be a weak argument since the US still has control, even if no control over the sovereign. I wonder if this will open the door to claims from prisoners being held in places by our agents, like in Pakistan.