Democracy is Depressing
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 November 18, 2008 at 11:48 PM in Current Affairs
I cannot stay away from this. It is mind boggling how ignorant and uninformed many voters were about fundamental facts in the election. Pollster John Zogby, partnered with John Ziegler, the mastermind of this interview, probably won’t be invited to the White House for any party during the Obama Administration. Watch it and weep:
Zogby then went out and did a scientific survey with a statistically significant sample. Here is what he found:
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet…..
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Of course, who needs facts when you have that Messianic zetigeist? The following video captures the creepiness of the religious fanaticism that infects many in the Obama crowd:
In light of the video of the ill-informed Obama voters I guess we must call this, “Dopes with Hope.” Right?
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Did ANYONE question WHY OBarnum won? I actually had continual arguments like THIS with people who have jobs, are educated, etc. who had NO IDEA WTF was going on. It’s why I lose all of my friends. Because stupidity and ignorance piss me off. I will always contend that if people had a CLUE they NEVER would have voted for FRAUDVOMIT.
I always appreciate reading your posts, but I must respectfully disagree with you on this in re people knowing the facts about Obama.
I have a good friend who I have been telling the facts to since February. Granted he was a Hillary supporter and loves her and voted for her in the primary. But I kept working on him anyway to make sure he knew who Obama was. After the nom was stolen and given to O, my friend made it clear to me that ‘he would vote for a geranium if he were a Democrat.’
It did not matter how much information I gave him — this is a super educated and incredibly smart man — he looked at McCain and was willing to believe he had been eaten by Evangelicals (even though they all sat home on election day) and he believed that Palin was the anti-Christ. And a “Barbie”.
There was absolutely no getting through to him.
Now after the fact, I am still telling him the facts — he still defends the guy although he is not thrilled.
Didn’t matter — he still voted for him.
It is amazing how many people are willing to believe that one party is the devil and the other are angels no matter what you tell them.
It was heartbreaking to see I could not make a dent in someone who otherwise trusts my opinion.
Obama had to have been stopped in the primary. Once he got the Dem label, it was hard for people like your friend to not elect a Dem in this particular year. I know a few others who refused to acknowledge all his problems.
It was heartbreaking to see I could not make a dent in someone who otherwise trusts my opinion.
Doesn’t this just prove Larry’s point, Ani?
Well, there’s no question that the Bush factor GREATLY influenced this election. I went through similar discussions with my husband. He kept insisting that there was no alternative but to vote BO.
One of the things that angered me about this election was how so many of the same people who gave us Bush, were bound and determined to do penance by voting 0bama.
It never occured to them that if they voted for Bush, their judgement should be called into to question.
Still, I agree with the basic point of the post. Frankly, I personally know more people who fit the profile above who were absolutely clueless.
It’s amazing how many uninformed people there are in America and how they simply don’t care that they are.
Most people don’t really think too much. They adopt an image. Their lives are made up of choosing houses, wives, political parties, jobs, degrees, and even the way they talk by modeling after some image.
There’s not really any doubt about this. Look at the number of non-cooks who want professional kitchens. LOL*
Ditto for their political identities. Palin has to be a Barbie. Fey said so, right?
How uncool would it be to admit that she’s charming, bright, and even reasonable even though she’s a member of a church that seems very fundamentalist? That would require thinking outside of stereotypes!
Unsafe! Might not be liked!
Most people can’t stand not being one of the herd.
I can’t bear it!
I agree AnninCA; a lot is rides on “belonging” and “being accepted” and they are so caught up on this that they completely shut off their brains to look into or read anything “the outsiders” say.
I agree AnninCA; a lot rides on “belonging” and “being accepted” and they are so caught up on this that they completely shut off their brains to look into or read anything “the outsiders” say.
Well I didn’t know Biden quit a campaign because of plagiarism, but I would have guessed it right. So count me in that .5% Pretty damn sad, a high school drop out who got his GED while in the Navy does better than the college grads
if biden had to quit a campaign because of plagiarism why wasn’t obama kicked to the curb long ago? he’s stolen speeches from his buddy deval, policy proposals from Hillary, and much more…..
I can’t stand that people are willing to ignore the lies and the fraud committed during this election. it’s disgusting.
They tried to use that against 0bama, but it didn’t work.
Also, the age of the Internet and computers have greatly influenced the way young people study. Students COPY & PASTE their assignments all the time, buy term papers online and other such stuff. It’s hard to keep track because there’s so much info and so easily accessible.
The new generation doesn’t see it as a problem. Unless you steal something outright and publish it and make money, it’s not a big deal to people.
Being from a different generation, I don’t get it.
Dopes with Hope…good one Larry
There goes another hopeless dope (good description of an Obama supporter).
Will hope put food on the table if a depression comes? A lot of people will be disappointed. I fear where their anger will take us.
Funny, the media and Obama supporters kept telling us how Obama supporters had a higher level of education than Hillary and McCain supporters.
Anytime I see people using a credential to “prove” intelligence,” I know I’m talking to someone who looks at image and that’s it.
Bright shows through how someone puts together their ideas, thoughts, etc., and requires no outside validation.
Education IS great. I’m all for it. But it’s not everything.
Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.
True Harp….but this is no longer a Democracy.
Comment from Hannity`s site:
Read this slowly. Let it sink in. Quietly we go. Sheep to slaughter.
Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever! . . . ON US
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration?
Anybody?
Anything?
No?
Didn’t think so.
Bottom line . . we’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?
AND NOW IT’S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY ‘WHAT WAS I THINKING?’
Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system over to them?
Ha!!!Just wait till we get the dept. of Health care up and running.
lol…Prozac for everyone.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18353/
—————————————
Keith Olbervomit in one minute. This is ALSO why that prick won.
Any social scientist would know that the Zogby data this group paid for is worthless. In order for it to mean anything, they would have to do an identical poll on a matching sample of random people.
You can only prove the hypothesis that Obama voters are misinformed if you compare them against a control group representing a sample of Americans who may or may not have voted for Obama.
As for the Michael Moore style “interviews” those are complete garbage. It’s the old “talk to dozens and dozens of people and only show people who support your argument” gimmick, and only a sucker would watch for anything but entertainment.
that is foolish. that would only be true if you are interested in knowing there informed level versus the general population. That’s not the case. It shows they are misinformed. Period. If you don’t know the answer it doesnt matter if others do or don’t it just means you don’t. They don’t know jack.
Ah yes, but if the rest of the country doesn’t know jack either, that means we could have made the exact same video and poll about McCain supporters.
that maybe true, but you don’t know that and it is stupid for you to invalidate the survey because nobody did a “control” because it is irrelevant to this survey. It also may not be true as evidenced by this pew survey:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics
Rush Limbaugh and Hannity listeners are more informed then anyone. You don’t know if you “could have made the same video with McCain voters”, maybe they listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and are more informed.
Limbaugh and Hannity might know some bare facts when compared to the general population, because they are a niche market. People have to seek out Limbaugh and Hannity if they want to hear their message, and if they are willing to seek them out then the chances are pretty darn good that politics will be one of their hobbies.
How’s this for a control, according to Pew of all people surveyed 53% knew who controls congress while among Obie voters only 42% could.
So, by extrapolation, if Obie voters are at 42% while making up 52% of voters and the average is 53% and McCain voters make up 48% then that would mean McCain supporters must know the correct answer at a rate of around 65%. Meaning they are 50% better informed then you Obots.
Hey, good point about the “control” group!
shite! Joe the Plumber had more on the ball than the average BO Kool-aid addict.
Frakin BO make’s Bubbles (The Wire) look like a corporate lawyer.
I think it’s valid doing a poll of Obama voters, since he got 52% of the popular vote. We can thank our MSM for a lot of this, and let’s face it - most Americans just aren’t that curious about politics these days. Still, I think it’s tragic that over half surveyed could not correctly state that the Democrats control Congress - but they all sure as hell knew about the Sarah Palin wardrobe flap and the fact that her daughter is pregnant.
We’re in trouble as a Nation when so many get their news from Leno/Letterman, Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr.
word.
The problem, Justin, is that the Obama campaign was frequently boastful that THEIR supporters were BETTER EDUCATED than the average voter.
This survey is quite fair when looking at the election results from THAT perspective. This survey showed, quite frighteningly, that Obama’s supporters were/are NOT necessarily any better educated than the general public.
Justin, did you READ the article? (Can you read withh understanding?) Zogby also did a follow up poll of some 500 or so ramdon voters via telephone. Results - the same.
Ah. Justin. Most scientific data began as antidotal evidence, a spark of ingenuity. This whole 2008 election is giving us the best insight into the 300,000,000 citizens that make up this country and how they process information fed to them. And those “Obama supporters” were very passive people, intimidated at being put on the spot with questions they did not know how to answer - sort of like being a Civics pop quiz. Again, just antidotal, but they seemed to have joined the mob because it gives them a special status, not because Soertoro/Obama moved them with any specific ideology.
To gain any significant insight into Obama supporters’ reasons, the whole mob would have to be interviewed and the data compared to the whole society to pinpoint the differences between an Obama voter and the citizens who did not vote for “brand Obama”.
However, there are studies done on cults and cult personalities that could provide a starting point. The whole Obama cult (especially that Greek temple stuff) resembled a gathering of the Moonies to me and I felt like I was waiting for the mass marriage ceremony to begin.
This is truly sad. How can anyone take the responsibility of voting so lightly? Do they not realize that it not only affects them? It affects everyone. This man could destroy their children’s lives/futures, then they can say I remember when…try to explain to their children why they voted for someone whom they had zero knowledge about just because he had a D behind his name or he was African American.
Oh, btw Zogby wasn’t the “mastermind” of this sham, he was hired to do the poll, that’s all. The “mastermind” is a guy named John Ziegler and this is his website.
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
STFU TROLL
Oh Justin, you’re such a dweeb, we already know about that website.
Then you should know that Zogby isn’t the “mastermind”.
We should KNOW that you are a bought and paid for POS troll who is a total moron.
Uh, who cares “Zogby isn’t the mastermind”. The people didn’t know the answer, just like when Howard Stern sent a reporter to Harlem.
You heard about that didn’t you?
Ah yes, Howard Stern is a renowned Sociologist. He knows all about how to conduct a valid survey with a true sample. He’s up there with Emile Durkheim and W.E.B. DuBois.
Isn’t it past your bedtime?
FYI, Stern wasn’t doing a survey
Just asking some simple folks some simple questions.
Justin, If you ask someone and they don’t know, they don’t know.
Yet this country is at it’s weakest when the electorate is un-informed. So it stands to reason that inferior people should not be employed.
Good luck with the un-enjoyment line.
It’s a poll. Geez. It makes a point. There is the video of people who don’t know a dam thing about the power stucture of their own government. How dumb is that?
Wasn’t DuBois an African-American? Or are you just a racist?
You might want to come down from your high horse and remember that many “polls” are little more than “man on the street” interviews (like the Stern case), but that really makes little difference. The majority of the “valid polls” taken (the ones that the networks and news organizations produce on a near-daily basis) involve fewer than 1500 people ACROSS THE WHOLE NATION. And, an unreasonable number of the polls dealing with the general election this year OVERsampled Democrats (or people likely to vote Democratic). Since none of us have the magic to access the raw data, it’s hard for us to find out how many people who answered the poll questions were discarded (believe it or not, that DOES happen). Most of the polls this year were no more reliable than those special interest questionnaires that are routinely sent out.
Tampa..I’m really looking forward to Sarah being Obama’s vice president..
and I’m so glad that Obama wants to stay in Iraq.
Yep Seattle, those Obama supporters are so darn smart!
Thanks for posting this story Larry.
Here is the Pew poll which shows the most informed people regarding politics watch Hannity or listen to Rush
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics
This video and the stats just reinforce what has made us NQers crazy these past months! The media totally controlled the message.
It’s very lonely (except here of course) to be the sole non-Obama worshiper in my neighborhood and county (SF Bay Area). My brother passed along this piece by Chris Hedges that dovetails with the Zogby findings–we’ve become an illiterate American-idol like electorate.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081110_america_the_illiterate/
Nobody likes to say the G word (Shh, Germany) in polite company but with our current economic crisis and our fallen standing in the world and the adoring crowds it’s just too much like Germany in the 30s.
Bayareavoter, you are absolutely right.–The mindless adoration of Obama is very remeniscent of the G 30′.— Its frightening.–
>>> Nobody likes to say the G word (Shh, Germany) in polite company but with our current economic crisis and our fallen standing in the world and the adoring crowds it’s just too much like Germany in the 30s.
Except the beer’s not as good and the women are skinnier here.
When do we invade Poland and annex Alsace and Lorraine?
Not so sure that Yankee women are skinnier. Have you even been to Germany? Where do you get your stats?
we’ve become an illiterate American-idol like electorate.
Exactly, bayareavoter. I had the same idea yesterday standing in the grocery store line. There was Obama and Michelle on the covers of US and People and several similar type magazines. It is unbelievable. They are just the latest new face and new star. Rock stars. Not leaders. Not even politicians. They are the new Lady Di. It is not policy or issues or leading the country that matters to this crowd. It is how many magazine covers can I get on this week or month.
No one may want to talk about it but it is in the history books for all to read. And there is always the Nuremnburg trial record to give us the unpleasant details.
We have two kinds of people in this country; the Ostrich People who bury their heads in the sand and the curious people with their necks stuck out. We had the same thing during the Revolutionary War; the Tories who liked the British ways and all those discontented rebels like Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry and so many, many more who stuck their necks out to “create a more perfect union”. And I do not believe we are going to let the Ostrich people take away what those founding fathers built with the sweat and blood of our forefathers. That is my hope.
Zogby is a world class joke! His pols are dog-shit. Get a grip, morons!
You get a grip azzhole.
MikeMc,
uh… good point.
what a moron…
While majorities in most Obama news audiences knew that the Democrats have a majority in the House, Patriotic viewers of Hannity & Colmes (84%), and listeners of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program (83%) scored best on this question. Large proportions of Normal Hannity & Colmes viewers (73%) and Limbaugh listeners (71%) also identified Rice as the secretary of state;
However, several news audiences with relatively low proportions of college graduates also scored well on the news quiz: for instance, 31% of regular Hannity & Colmes viewers are college graduates but these viewers did about as well on the political news quiz as the better educated SNOBS regular NPR audience
Please Obama first press conference and he had to say sorry to a former first lady for insulting her dead husband. The press will not even have to dig up anything. Obama is a joke and it will show when he speaks
Maybe we should ask those people if they can cash hope in the bank.
He gave less than 1% to charity do and nothing to his hungry family in Kenya do they really think he is going to help them?
He didn’t insult Ron. He made fun of Nancy and her Jeanne Dixon astrology hocus pocus.
I’m so glad you came here Justin. You remind us all of what garbage OVomit is and how stupid his drones are. Thanks for stopping by! You’re truly the biggest ad for your boss’s favorite thing in life - abortion. When they start mandatory aborting fetuses with teeny little IQs like yours, wonder how you will feel? LMFAO.
I’m not the one who mistook a jovial jab at Nancy Reagan’s belief in astrology (or cryptozoology, witchcraft, ley lines, Mary Todd Lincoln’s ghost, and whatever other supernatural nonsense she believes) for an insult to Ronald Reagan, so how can I be the dumb one?
“Jovial jab”???? Get real.
first of all, it apparently wasnt a “jovial jab” since Obie called to apologize, but beyond that if anyone is “dumb” here it is Obie (and you by extension) since Nancy was never connected to a seance, the only first lady who was is Hillary Clinton.
“It actually wasn’t Nancy Reagan who was linked to conversations with the dead; it was Obama’s top Democratic challenger for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.” CBS News
Notice the piece says Clinton was “linked” to seances. Remember the good old days when the right “linked” everything to the Clintons? Rape, murder, you name it, the GOP “linked” it. Of course it was all patently false, unlike the FACT that Nancy believes in “star power”. LOL.
Gosh, you really are pathetic:
“In his 1996 book, “The Choice,” Washington Post editor and writer Bob Woodward said that as first lady, Sen. Hillary Clinton had seance-like sessions at the White House during which she conversed with late first lady Eleanor Roosevelt.”
Yeah, that right wing nutbar Bob Woodward. Would you like to admit your error now?
Hippy-dippy “evoking the spirit of Eleanor for guidance” maybe but not a seance in the sense that she really thought she was talking to the dead.
Unbelievable…..how dense can you be?
Have you never heard of guided image techniques?
how can I be the dumb one?…. you practice harder sparky.
Still defending Soertoro, Justin? Don’t you ever wonder why “the one” still takes up so much of your time defending his faux pas? Are you ever going to get any time off or get a promotion to a cubical or are you chained to a keyboard for the next four years?
No, actually he accused Nancy Reagan of holding seances, which is quite different than consulting an astrologist.
It’s not really that different.
Please….I know you’re not that stupid! On second thought, maybe you are.
First off astrology is an ancient art.
Second, BO thinks it shows diplomatic skills, I think it makes him look more like the fool’s fool that he is. It doesn’t matter who is on the recieving end.
He is a “stinky” ,”pathetic” human. (Not my word word for him, his wife and kids.)
Much as I personally never cared for Nancy
Reagan, she is a President’s wife and quite
an elderly person.
0Zero, as usual, DISRESPECTED an older WOMAN!!
Even if what he said was true, he should have
not mentioned this about her AT ALL.
Plus, and this is IMPORTANT, 0Zero knows NOTHING
of HISTORY and certainly is too LAZY to ever
check his facts before he blurts out his
DRIVEL…..
And don’t forget his Auntie O’DingDong living in the slums of Boston was it? Now she’s got an attorney (on the taxpayer’s dime I’m sure) fighting her deportation order.
O’DingDong? Was that her name? Really, Kathy? I find that hard to believe.
Throw a little Jack Daniels in your Koolaid. You’re really uptight.
I’m surprised John Zogby chose to conduct this poll. I can’t wait to watch the documentary about this.
As Riverdaughter says, the Media is the biggest threat to democracy.
This is OT, but it was posted at RD, and I don’t know how legit it is, but I figured the excellent researchers here could check out it’s validity:
This is very important for our national security. Please be aware that we are faced with a huge potential threat bigger than 9/11 or even Pearl Harbor and WWII. It is a 21 century Trojan horse in our back yard now. It is called Shariah Compliant Islamic Finance and it has been endorsed by the U. S. government. Billions of dollars of Islamic money is puring in to Wall Street and going to help bail out companies like AIG, Bank of America,, and soon GM and Ford, I am afraid. Harvard University has been holding seminars annually on this since the year before 9/11/2001! But no one seems to care. I sent out a petition on this issue last week to over fifty conservative members of “our community” and only two picked up on it and signed on board (A retired U. S. airforce Colonel and a Sacramento Rabbi with Middle East expertise) I have been urging people to investigate this issue before the United States inadvertently becomes another Denmark in the Muslim’s quest to take over and control the world. Here is the link. Please investigate by watching the video and then joining the petition to stop this nonsense now:
Video: http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/home/18-headline-item/518-shariah-compliant-finance-jihad-with-money
Petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/stopaig/
The Shariah banking video is very scary. I understand Great Britain has already passed laws through their parliament for Shariah courts that preside over domestic issues and finance. It is probable, after watching this, that the US is headed this way also. After this election and how it was stolen and how Bots, I know, don’t want to be confused by the facts, I don’t hold out much hope for fighting this. I suggest everyone watch this video link.
Great Britain has not passed such laws, Not through parliament, however stealth Sharia is creeping in through the justice system. FYI. You are right to be aware and concerned of these issues.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
in other words they are exploiting a loophole which was not intended for them!
Under our Constitution there are no provisions for creating new religious courts. In fact, any religious intrusion in government is unconstitutional. And someone with expertise in international banking needs to look into the financial restrictions of investments with foreign religious groups who have threatened the United States.
And I paraphrase Patrick Henry here; I know not what course others may take but I will not live under Sharia law in the country my forefathers fought and died to free from foreign interference. And we need to know now what allegiance to what country and what religious law Mr. Soertoro, aka Barack Obama, has pledged himself to. Before December 15, 2008.
Wow, this video is great. It shows how media bias
play the role in Nov 4.
The person who produced this video is genius.
Make this a documentary on the election and take it to Cannes, Sundance, make a DVD and put it out in Walmart stores.
Can someone tell me why Fraudvomit STILL pays little losers and dirtbags like Justin to show up here? I mean, all it does is affirm the fact that Obama supporters are nothing but the lowest of dirt and scum America has to offer. I don’t get why Obama needs to continually prove that his voters are nothing but scum. WTF?
How come you only use the dirty words in acronyms?
They’re probably volunteering now. These Obots are so obsessed with all things Obama, they have to keep fighting the fight because they don’t know what else to do with themselves but preach and proselytize Obama. Moreover any criticism of His Magnificence sends them into a psychotic frenzy, complete with wailing, howling, winding their teeth and foaming at the mouth. After they clean themselves up, get back online and start pounding their keyboards trying to correct our errant criticism and questioning of Obama’s splendor.
Oops–that’s “grinding” their teeth. Same diff.
Moreover any criticism of His Magnificence sends them into a psychotic frenzy, complete with wailing, howling, winding their teeth and foaming at the mouth
No one projects like a No Quarterite.
(Watch Nate Silver take this clown out to the woodshed.)
Or like an obamaphile!
Your source is incorrect. It was NOT a push-poll. This, from Zogby himself:
“We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn’t. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that’s exactly what we did. We don’t have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion.” - John Zogby
So happy you posted this. I couldn’t believe it when I saw this. I knew a majority of his voters were ignorant, but this was just amazing.
And you title is perfect. Yes, it surely is.
Ugh! WTH? If you can not inform yourself any better than that, don’t vote!!
I went to lunch with a friend that I haven’t seen in about a year. I asked her what she thought of
ourher new President. Her response? She voted for him! Her reason? McCain is just another Bush. The strange thing is she voted for Bush & bragged about what a good President he would be! It ticks me off that she just assumes that McCain is like Bush & Barky is going to bring change to our country. Well, she better hold on tight. The change that is coming her way is not what she bargained for!What is it with these a-wads who couldn’t pick a decent president if their life depended on it? I don’t know how many Obama supporters I’ve talked to that also voted for Bush.
Let’s see, how are they different? One is a Republican and white, one is Democrat and not. They must have said “Wow, we totally screwed up last time, let’s do a 180.”
Ah but what do they have in common? Both puppets for fascist corporate interests, both darlings of the media (at first), both uniquely unfit for office, both spread enough verbal manure to fertilize Kansas.
The morons picked the same guy twice, the only difference was the package.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
ha!
How’s the struggle? Conservatively be stupid! Terrorist! Racist! Socialist! Marxist! Communist! Infanticide! Maverick! Right of center America!
But…he is mr. hopey changey!
Larry,
This was the definitive statement on your integrity: re-write the article, delete the post that pointed out your mistake, and never admit anything.
i just read and watched the clip, and will go to the web site to research more - this, for me, has to be one of the most disturbing event that has happened in modern politics. How the uninformed has set in motion the future of our country without an regard to the facts.
God help us all.
The future is what the deserve - Russia or China - anyone?
So sad. The media projected George W. Bush’s ignorance onto Sarah Palin because she’s a woman. Disgusting. It’s further disgusting that Democrats are so shallow and hateful. Look at these people’s faces when they say Palin’s name. Fear, they were totally afraid that Palin would take the WH away from Obama (I almost wrote Bush!) May it be so in the future.
If one reads the transcript of Mr. Ziegler’s interview with Nate Silver it becomes very clear that Mr. Ziegler has an agenda. One he shares with Larry Johnson.
OMG! Sad, sad, really sad.
It really is sad. I know I teared up at the end there, because I know so many Americans, and especially Obots, are just THAT out of it. It’s sad because we know so much more about everything that went down, and it’s like ya can’t even talk to these people to explain because they won’t get it.
Gawd, and they just expose themselves to one sided media outlets–all saying the same thing to them.
ughhhhh.
Media tricked sooo many people.
Do you think, one day, we will all be vindicated? I think there’s bound to be backlash, and a wake up call to this country.
It’s sad. I don’t trust the media or government anymore–at all. And the American people? Fools galore. Can’t stand any of it.