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 October 8, 2008 at 8:01 AM in Current Affairs
Back when NoQuarter was attracting only about 1500 individual visits a day (December 2005) I wrote the following about Berntsen’s book:
The book the CIA didn’t want you to read, JAWBREAKER by Gary Berntsen, is out and it kills. I’ve sent Gary a nasty note because his story kept me up till 4 am today. Just couldn’t put it down. Gary spent most of this year battling CIA censors, who were refusing to release the book. They insisted on excising parts of the story that have already appeared in other books about CIA operations in Afghanistan written by Steve Coll and another CIA veteran, Gary Schroen.
Gary Berntsen was the second CIA officer sent to Afghanistan and put in charge of directing the destruction of Al Qaeda and the hunt for Bin Laden. He arrived in the fall of 2001, replacing veteran officer Gary Schroen, who had led the first CIA element into Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. Gary 2, i.e., Berntsen, built on Schroen’s foundation and played a critical role in directing the offensive that broke the back of the Taliban and scattered Al Qaeda.
The key news from Gary’s book is that we had Bin Laden in our sights but Tommy Franks and JSOC Commander, Dell Dailey, dilly dallied and did not deploy U.S. troops requested by Berntsen to the battle at Tora Bora. We could of had him; we should of had him; but we let Bin Laden get away.
You can read the rest here. I sent Gary a note Sunday night after watching some of the 60 Minutes piece featuring Daulton Fury. I asked Gary, is this guy legit. Gary replied:
Dalton Fury is the JSOC Ground Force Commander that joined my men in Tora Bora. We ultimately turned the battlefield over to him and he was extremely brave and competent. He is very fine man. I am glad someone got to put the details out where the Agency blocked me. I guess this sort of settles who knew what and when. How about JSOC and CENTCOM refusing to allow him to come in from the back side and refusing to let him drop mines.
Some people tried to paint me as not truthful when I wrote Jawbreaker.
I am thrilled that he has accurately finished the story
If you missed the 60 Minutes story it is now up on YouTube.
The Delta Force officer who commanded U.S. ground forces hunting Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in late 2001 will publish a book in October that he promises will explain how the al-Qaida leader managed to slip through the grasp of the United States.
But the author’s plans have put him on a collision course with U.S. Special Operations Command, which he says is threatening to take him to court for revealing classified information.
The author, who spoke on the condition his identity not be revealed, wrote the book under the pseudonym Dalton Fury. At the time of the hunt for bin Laden in the mountainous region of Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan, Fury was a major commanding a Delta Force troop, and was placed in charge of an additional Delta troop (for a total of about 40 Delta operators) plus assorted other special operations elements at Tora Bora.
It is now generally accepted that bin Laden was present at Tora Bora after fleeing Jalalabad ahead of the allied advance that toppled the Taliban government, but escaped the assault on his mountain stronghold, despite a massive bombing campaign and attacks from allied Afghan militias and U.S. and British special operators. The failure to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora later became a focus for critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the war against al-Qaida.
Fury, who had prior enlisted service as an infantryman, retired in 2005 as a major and decided to write a book about Tora Bora, motivated by a desire to honor the troops who served with him there “and to tell the truth.”
“There have been so many Democratic jabs about it being done with proxy forces, with just maybe U.S. forces advising,” Fury said. “No one has ever really talked about [how] it was the U.S. Delta Force and the SBS [the British Special Boat Service] that were actually in the mountains when the Afghans were leaving every night … So you left Americans behind the lines by themselves.”
Fury said he told his troops when they left Tora Bora, “this is going to become a big deal in the future.”
“Of course everybody looked at me like, ‘No it’s not,’” he recalled. “We all assumed at the time that bin Laden would be caught in a week, a month, a year, and [Tora Bora] would be a minor footnote. But it’s become [so symbolic] of major strategic failure… that I thought the operational positives and the tactical success that we had needed to be told … to the public.”
Fury said the book will also explain how bin Laden managed to escape.
“From my perspective as the ground force commander and what I’ve learned since then, I think we have a pretty good handle on the steps, the missteps, the decisions made and the actual actions that were taken that led him to get out of there,” he said.
The book, which Fury has already written, is tentatively titled Kill bin Laden and will be published by St. Martin’s Press.
George Bush leaves office soon with his reputation in tatters. After the most devastating terrorist attack on U.S. soil George Bush failed to make capturing and killing Bin Laden a priority. Fury’s book is just another brick in the wall of facts that is disclosing how foolish Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were in their failure to press the war against the Islamic extremists. But Fury honors the men who went behind enemy lines and put their own lives at risk. So there is a silver lining.
I encourage you to buy the book using the Amazon link above. First, the book is worth your time and money. Second, NoQuarter gets a small pittance from Amazon and it helps defray the costs of the blog.
Comment by 30yrdem-not any more
| 2008-10-08 08:12:01
I have a question….Because Wall St. seems to run everything in this country. Who do they think would be best for our economy? No party crap. Who has the best plan according to Wall St.standards?
Investment baker would increase his professional appeal. Definitely. He may want to start using it. After all, that would be “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.”
Workin’
I feel for the major… he’s the victim of exceptional communications technology. The mission was never his team’s mission. It belonged to the CIA dude on the ground and his satellite phone back to Langley, then on up to who?
to Larry,
Is it SOP to let the top dawg play the mission by phone or what’s your guess as to from how high the decision was made.
I remember reading that Bill had a shot or eight at UBL and never squeezed, so is this the same thing?
George Bush leaves office soon with his reputation in tatters…Bush failed to make capturing and killing Bin Laden a priority. …is just another brick in the wall of facts that is disclosing how foolish Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were in their failure to press the war against the Islamic extremists.
Nonsense. Ben Ladin is dead. He has been dead now for quite a while. Not capturing Ben Ladin (since he is dead) justifies the expense and efforts in Afghanistan and aids in continuing with the war against Islamic extremist.
Ben Ladin cannot be found because he was burried under the floor of the hut where he was convalescing of his illnesses. They dug a whole in his bedroom and buried him right there. End of story. He is still a hero to all Islamic extremist.
No. They are product of my imagination. But think about it. What else can explain Ben Ladin’s disappearance? Please. The man is unique, with unique characteristics and by golly where the heck in this wide world can this man hide when his illnesses require constant medical attention.
Supposedly alQaeda and the Taliban are in Pakistan. Obama has broadcast his willingness to unilaterally attack Pakistan to root out terrorists. And Dems criticize Bush for politicizing foreign policy?!?
Obama sure knows how to stir up trouble…
Caption: Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)
Pakistan criticizes Obama for ‘irresponsible’ statement on military strikes
The Associated Press Friday, August 3, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Hundreds of protesters chanted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag to protest a remark by Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama saying that, if elected, he might order military strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaida.
The protests followed comments by Pakistani officials calling Obama’s comments irresponsible.
Obama’s comment turned up the heat on already simmering anger among Pakistanis about the issue, after senior Bush administration officials said last week they too would consider such strikes if intelligence warranted them.
CONTINUED —
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmad in Islamabad and Zarar Khan in Karachi contributed to this report.
Oblabla is gearing himself to get a real threat from a real nuclear military country that is really willing to use their bombs as they see fit. And they have to only detonate one little bomb in the hills of Afghanistan to make their case. Lets see then what the heck will Oblabla do?
He thinks he is f’ing John Kennedy. JFK screwed up big time with the Cuban missile crisis and we all only survived to blog today because USSR was a rational european country who didn’t want to die. If Oblahma tries it with Pakistan we may just be kissing our a**es goodbye.
McCain is absolutely right about this– Obama needs to shut his mouth. Does Obama honestly think the Pakistanis will support or even have good will towards the U.S. if the Pres. is threatening to attack their country? If so, Obama IS dangerous. If not, he needs to admit a mistake and change his rote response.
McCain skewers Obama on this issue. McCain makes Obama look like a chump.
Though most of the debate dealt with domestic issues, it was a foreign-policy question that sent me flying to my files. Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their “doctrine” would be “in situations where there’s a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security,” such as “the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998,” or Rwanda or Somalia.
In such cases, answered Obama, “we have moral issues at stake.” Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. “When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.”
But that wasn’t how Obama sounded last year, when he was competing for the Democratic nomination and was unbending in his demand for an American retreat from Iraq. Back then, he dismissed fears that a US’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics). withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).
What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide - genocide - can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?
G’ dang it. He reversed himself in his next statement. He began first by being for it, then after explaining in length why he was for it, he reverse himself and explain why it wasn’t feasible and why he would she from doing it. For it and against it both at the same time. Everyone liked it cause it appeals to everyone.
Obama also contradicts himself by saying he will pull troops from Iraq and move them to Afganistan. He is not ending war! Can you please tell me how the anti-war people on the left square this?
Larry, I hope the book covers the insidious way the ISI worked hand in glove with the terrorists to prevent their interdiction on their way into Pakistan. To quote Hitchens, “Pakistan IS the problem.”
“Back when NoQuarter was attracting only about 1500 individual visits a day (December 2005)”
It was a much better place then and attracted people with the ability to reason.
Speaking of reason
This guy was out of the loop. A Major’s tiger-tale is superfluous when you know in your heart of hearts that ISI was sandbaging the operation —– and still is.
It’s kind of Gary Berntsen to compliment “Dalton Fury” considering that on 60 Minutes “Fury” was not complimentary of the un-named CIA officers who were with him.
I saw Gary Berntsen discussing his book on C-SPAN. In that appearance, I didn’t find him so critical of the Pentagon, etc., but rather saw - as with “Dalton Fury” - a man confident in his own abilities who was frustrated that he came so close to “getting” bin Laden. Nothing new to find in military histories leaders who felt “if only THEIR plan had been followed …”
Also good to note that 60 Minutes reported that “Dalton Fury” initially thought bin Laden had been killed. Did he then perhaps think that the effort had been adequate?
60 Minutes did not report why follow-up efforts were not made then rather than months later. Do Gary Berntsen and “Fury” share any blame for that?
Don’t mistake that I blame them. I think both men’s stories should be celebrated for the audacious effort and for the success they did have.
cmsmith, the CIA folks, including Gary Bernsten, were professional, aggressive, relevant, and brave during the entire battle of TB. There is no hidden agenda or implication of blame on the CIA in the 60 Min interview or in the book itself. Gary has nothing to accept any blame about. He did his job spectacularly. As for me, I accept my full share of the blame, which is explained in detail inside the book.
Larry, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration? If not, then who ordered NORAD to stand down on 9/11? Why was there no criminal investigation of 9/11 by the US attorney from New York? Was the original draft 2001 Patriot Act actually written before 9/11?
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.
Fury’s book, Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander’s Account of the Hunt for the World’s Most Wanted Man, corroborates Gary Berntsen’s account published two years ago, Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA’s Key Field Commander. 
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Yesterday after debate someone’s answer on what Americans want to hear from their candidate was;
They wanted to hear something but they don’t know what and only when they hear it they would know what that is?
Please elaborate if you can what is that you would like to hear?
I have a question….Because Wall St. seems to run everything in this country. Who do they think would be best for our economy? No party crap. Who has the best plan according to Wall St.standards?
They want McCain. At least that’s what my brother, who is an investment baker, told me.
Banker, not Baker
LOL; he may need a new career after this is over.
No “dough” puns, please…
Investment baker would increase his professional appeal. Definitely. He may want to start using it. After all, that would be “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.”
Soeterobama = WORSE than Carter…in every way
There is no single “they.” They are split.
THE WHOLE THING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN LARRY…good article…
NQ ROCKS!
Workin’
I feel for the major… he’s the victim of exceptional communications technology. The mission was never his team’s mission. It belonged to the CIA dude on the ground and his satellite phone back to Langley, then on up to who?
to Larry,
Is it SOP to let the top dawg play the mission by phone or what’s your guess as to from how high the decision was made.
I remember reading that Bill had a shot or eight at UBL and never squeezed, so is this the same thing?
Remember that clssy lady, Claire McCaskill?
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/claire-mckaskill-i-spit-on-it/
Fascinating post, Larry. Great information for us civilians who only get to hear the approved version. I can’t wait to read the book.
Hearing Bozo pontificate on how he would handle military action gave me nightmares, literally. What a poseur.
MUST WATCH:
Barack Obama and “The Butcher of Kenya”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ
I heard the author on the Bachelor show Sunday night. Sounds like a very good read.
It was interesting to hear him discuss how Delta’s plans were nixed for some reason.
60 minutes, I mean.
What’s strange is that we’ve heard no gloats from Osama bin Laden about the Wall Street Meltdown of America’s Main Street.
Some of you may remember that our financial ruin was one of Osama’s main objectives.
looks like even russia is melting …. climate change?!
Fascinating article, Larry. It’s great to hear from the troops on the ground–horse’s mouth, so to speak. Thanks for this perspective.
Nonsense. Ben Ladin is dead. He has been dead now for quite a while. Not capturing Ben Ladin (since he is dead) justifies the expense and efforts in Afghanistan and aids in continuing with the war against Islamic extremist.
Ben Ladin cannot be found because he was burried under the floor of the hut where he was convalescing of his illnesses. They dug a whole in his bedroom and buried him right there. End of story. He is still a hero to all Islamic extremist.
Interesting disclosures. Can you point us to a source?
No. They are product of my imagination. But think about it. What else can explain Ben Ladin’s disappearance? Please. The man is unique, with unique characteristics and by golly where the heck in this wide world can this man hide when his illnesses require constant medical attention.
Another accomplishment of The One for his next ad on his many many accomplishment.
“Lawmaker’s son indicted in Palin e-mail hacking”
Mike Kernell’s reputation: Ruined.
David Kernell’s reputation: Ruined.
University of Tennessee reputation: Ruined.
Everyone’s reputation associated with Oblabla: Ruined
Supposedly alQaeda and the Taliban are in Pakistan. Obama has broadcast his willingness to unilaterally attack Pakistan to root out terrorists. And Dems criticize Bush for politicizing foreign policy?!?
Obama sure knows how to stir up trouble…
Caption: Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2007/08/03/the-two-faces-of-obama/
Pakistan criticizes Obama for ‘irresponsible’ statement on military strikes
The Associated Press
Friday, August 3, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Hundreds of protesters chanted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag to protest a remark by Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama saying that, if elected, he might order military strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaida.
The protests followed comments by Pakistani officials calling Obama’s comments irresponsible.
Obama’s comment turned up the heat on already simmering anger among Pakistanis about the issue, after senior Bush administration officials said last week they too would consider such strikes if intelligence warranted them.
CONTINUED —
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmad in Islamabad and Zarar Khan in Karachi contributed to this report.
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6983218
Oblabla is gearing himself to get a real threat from a real nuclear military country that is really willing to use their bombs as they see fit. And they have to only detonate one little bomb in the hills of Afghanistan to make their case. Lets see then what the heck will Oblabla do?
He thinks he is f’ing John Kennedy. JFK screwed up big time with the Cuban missile crisis and we all only survived to blog today because USSR was a rational european country who didn’t want to die. If Oblahma tries it with Pakistan we may just be kissing our a**es goodbye.
McCain is absolutely right about this– Obama needs to shut his mouth. Does Obama honestly think the Pakistanis will support or even have good will towards the U.S. if the Pres. is threatening to attack their country? If so, Obama IS dangerous. If not, he needs to admit a mistake and change his rote response.
McCain skewers Obama on this issue. McCain makes Obama look like a chump.
Though most of the debate dealt with domestic issues, it was a foreign-policy question that sent me flying to my files. Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their “doctrine” would be “in situations where there’s a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security,” such as “the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998,” or Rwanda or Somalia.
In such cases, answered Obama, “we have moral issues at stake.” Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. “When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.”
But that wasn’t how Obama sounded last year, when he was competing for the Democratic nomination and was unbending in his demand for an American retreat from Iraq. Back then, he dismissed fears that a US’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics). withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).
What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide - genocide - can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/08/obamas-180-on-genocide/
G’ dang it. He reversed himself in his next statement. He began first by being for it, then after explaining in length why he was for it, he reverse himself and explain why it wasn’t feasible and why he would she from doing it. For it and against it both at the same time. Everyone liked it cause it appeals to everyone.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Obama, The Audacity of Hope
Obama is a master con artist!
Good point.
Obama also contradicts himself by saying he will pull troops from Iraq and move them to Afganistan. He is not ending war! Can you please tell me how the anti-war people on the left square this?
Larry, I hope the book covers the insidious way the ISI worked hand in glove with the terrorists to prevent their interdiction on their way into Pakistan. To quote Hitchens, “Pakistan IS the problem.”
And yet you’ve thrown your support behind a guy that is Bush III, and will continue ignoring those who attacked us on 9/11.
The question for me, Larry, when I read this stuff is WHY?
Did someone deliberately screw it up or was it more of the same ineptitude from Bush and the military we saw in mismanaging Iraq?
“Back when NoQuarter was attracting only about 1500 individual visits a day (December 2005)”
It was a much better place then and attracted people with the ability to reason.
Speaking of reason
This guy was out of the loop. A Major’s tiger-tale is superfluous when you know in your heart of hearts that ISI was sandbaging the operation —– and still is.
It’s kind of Gary Berntsen to compliment “Dalton Fury” considering that on 60 Minutes “Fury” was not complimentary of the un-named CIA officers who were with him.
I saw Gary Berntsen discussing his book on C-SPAN. In that appearance, I didn’t find him so critical of the Pentagon, etc., but rather saw - as with “Dalton Fury” - a man confident in his own abilities who was frustrated that he came so close to “getting” bin Laden. Nothing new to find in military histories leaders who felt “if only THEIR plan had been followed …”
Also good to note that 60 Minutes reported that “Dalton Fury” initially thought bin Laden had been killed. Did he then perhaps think that the effort had been adequate?
60 Minutes did not report why follow-up efforts were not made then rather than months later. Do Gary Berntsen and “Fury” share any blame for that?
Don’t mistake that I blame them. I think both men’s stories should be celebrated for the audacious effort and for the success they did have.
cmsmith, the CIA folks, including Gary Bernsten, were professional, aggressive, relevant, and brave during the entire battle of TB. There is no hidden agenda or implication of blame on the CIA in the 60 Min interview or in the book itself. Gary has nothing to accept any blame about. He did his job spectacularly. As for me, I accept my full share of the blame, which is explained in detail inside the book.
Osama Bin Laden is dead and has been for quite some time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
Comment by Troy | 2008-10-08 14:39:54 “Osama Bin Laden is dead and has been for quite some time”
The last few videos of OB kind of look a bit like computer generated images.
Larry, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration? If not, then who ordered NORAD to stand down on 9/11? Why was there no criminal investigation of 9/11 by the US attorney from New York? Was the original draft 2001 Patriot Act actually written before 9/11?
I would like to hear your views on this. John
Pet peeve…. “Could have… Should have…”
I wasn’t an operator, I was just a grunt.