By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on January 14, 2009 at 9:31 AM in Current Affairs
I will give the Washington Post its due. While the Editorial page is awful, the News guys and gals, like a blind squirrel, find a nut once in a while. Today’s news is worth your time. Turns out that the Bush Administration did authorize torture.
Bob Woodward (the great enabler of the Bush Administration, who is busy kissing the ass of the incoming Obama Administration because he realizes he will need their help for his future blockbusters now that the Bushies are no longer relevant) breaks news with a report that a retired judge with solid Republican credentials says a Guantanamo prisoner was tortured:
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”
So much for Dick Cheney’s denial that the U.S. allowed or endorsed torture. Judge Susan Crawford reportedly decided that:
the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.
This is bad news for George Bush and Dick Cheney’s future tourist plans. Judge Crawford is helping write the indictment for war crime charges likely to be brought against senior members of the Bush Administration by jurists in Europe. George Bush and Dick Cheney, along with Paul Wolfowitz (DOD), George Tenet (CIA), John McLaughlin (CIA), Dougie Feith (DOD), and Cofer Black (CIA), are likely to find themselves facing charges similar to those levied against the former governors of Rwanda and Serbia. George Bush leaves office on the 20th of January but he will be living with the nightmare of his Administration for some years to come.
Peter Finn has a great companion piece that details the challenges the Obama Administration faces in trying to pursue charges against the suspected terrorists because of the breakdown in the judicial system that was supposed to be used to prosecute the Guantanamo inhabitants:
A former military prosecutor said in a declaration filed in federal court yesterday that the system of handling evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay is so chaotic that it is impossible to prepare a fair and successful prosecution.
Darrel Vandeveld, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, filed the declaration in support of a petition seeking the release of Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who has been held at the military prison in Cuba for six years. Jawad was a juvenile when he was detained in Kabul in 2002 after a grenade attack that severely wounded two U.S. Special Forces soldiers and their interpreter.
The parade of people talking about the abuses of the Bush Administration is just starting. This is sure to help give the new Obama team a brief honeymoon as the media and public finally come to grips with the long evident fact that Bush and company botched and bungled the handling of terrorist suspects and, in the process, tarnished the reputation of the United States. Heck of a job, Bushie.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I read a few years ago (Germany?) some country put out word that Cheney would be arrest for war crimes if he came there. I’m not sure which country now but it was hilarious to read at the time.
How he could shoot his pal in the FACE and not get arrested is beyond me. Duck hunting my ass.
Well, Karma is always late to the party imo.
and for the future (thank GOD)
we have HOPE with Hillary as our SOS
some HOPE
I think they have karma locked up at gitmo because it’s waaaaaay overdue for this bunch.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
I agree, the democrats have a tendency to make a big splash, while never having ANY intention of following through (ie FISA, war funding, torture).
Given how they might be seen as complicit, I would think many in Congress simply want to bury this, thinking it will go away, managing it as a PR problem.
(It won’t, though, they will carry this the rest of their lives, and really, it’s not good for the head.
And the US deserves better.)
Gee, this group from Cheney, and the rest : the men from FUBAR — WHAT a group of wannabe plumbers.
As Larry said, (paraphrasing):” Tom Clancy entranced jock sniffers,” (I would add learning disabled) unfortunately, making a covert mess.
A covert mess, with ramifications for greater US strategic position, men so stupid they really don’t understand sound military procedure, despite their delusions about themselves as “covert warriors.”
I think we will hear worse, aren’t there about four more US torture prisons throughout Europe?
And didn’t Obama’s new deputy NSC guy, Brennan, have a hand in helping to establish those?
And who knows WHAT was done, there?
If Obama wants a shot a presidential success, he will simply have ot purge the torture “learning disabled,” no two ways about it.
The world will make it hell for him if he doesn’t, and he really wants to model himself after the best of the British, not Stalin.
Well, the should go after the Bush administration, but will anyone go after the “historic black” POTUS ever? That is what I want to know. If we are going to favor some just because, then we should leave them all alone IMO. and why not remove them from office if they are so evil?
I’m afraid of forever Obama:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5
my television is already turning into a huge dust collector
That’s good because FOX just announced this morning that Comcast is going to have an Obama channel. 24/7 Obama, all the time!
Wha?? Can you find a link somewhere? This is truly bizarro world.
It is Bizarroworld! I think we are stuck in a twilight zone episode really!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0109/Comcast_launchs_allObama_channel.html
From the link…this comment sums it up.
“““
“So this is in addition to CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and Oprah, right?”
Posted By: Chris | January 13, 2009 at 05:19 PM
Yeah well that pesky Constitution thing gets in the way. Maybe this was in the cards all along.
They have compared Obama to FDR. The term limit was put into place to prevent another FDR.
Before the Democrats do this perhaps they should think what would happen if a Republican ever gets into office again.
I think the point is that no Republican will get in again. Chicago has gone National. How many Republicans are in the Chicago machine? From what I have heard is that it is mostly Democrats. If we don’t think that can happen, all we need to do is look at how the Democratic Primary was gamed to get their guy. I don’t put it past them to do it to then keep their guy!
We predicted this very thing during the primaries. We are one astute bunch!
FraudO is trying to rid the term limits and we can’t even be joyous that Cheney and Shrub are leaving because we have a bigger thug coming in behind him. Blacks pulled a revenge vote on Whitey. They were thinking, Oh, this nObama guy is a gangster, oh he’s the perfect one to sic on the whites for slavery and make them suffer. Though none of us has ever had slaves and none of the voters were slaves. And Slaves were sold from Kenya.
Speaking of Kenya, nObama’s Kenyan granny is coming to the inauguration with the whole family. I wonder if Odinga will be in the crowd? God help us!
Rolling thunder. I love your comments except when you spout the nonsense that AAs elected Obama. I am an AA who did not vote for Obama. THEY say 95% of AAs cast their votes for Obama. However, our low percentages in some states ranging from less than 1% to about 8% make it impossible to elect anybody to national office. In the deep southern states where I live AAs voting percentages range from about 20 to 32% of the potential voters but McCain carried these states (TX, MS, AK, TN, AL, GA, LA). Now honestly explain to me how it is that AAs are responsible for Obama’s election when for example about 32 % of them in MS could not carry the state for Obama but less than 5% of them in states like NH, MN, Vermont, etc. could win those states for Obama? That is nonsensical!!!
Lay off the BLACKS ELECTED OBAMA BS. WHITES ELECTED OBAMA, BLACKS HELPED IN A FEW STATES!!
How do you explain the multiple voting. My AA friend in NJ who NEVER voted in her 50 years of life went out with her son and mulitple voted and all her friends did it too.
I won’t quote what she said and I stand to be corrected if I’m wrong. So maybe I’m forgetting the fact that bama stole this election by any and all means. Sorry to you lump you in with a group think. Young Whites cheated too.
“Bob Woodward (the great enabler of the Bush Administration…”
Indeed. ‘Enabling’ Bush by writing books like State of Denial, Bush at War and The War Within: A Secret White House History.
Yeah Larry, he’s a neo-con, alright.
When the Dems took control of Congress two years ago, they had the opportunity and IMO justification to impeach Bush. They said then that it was off the table and allowed him to continue his strategies. I’m sure it was a political move as to not allow another stronger Repug to advance into the White House if they got rid of Bush and threaten their chances of winning the election this time. Their hands aren’t much cleaner than Bush’s, so I don’t think it stops at Bush and Company. There are many guilty parties.
I agree, this, combined with a basic lack of skill and intellect will lead to this being no more than a well managed PR operation, as opposed to a true search for justice.
In the US, that is, world wide, it will still have ramifications, the international community frosting out the responsible parties, and those refusing to prosecute the war criminals.
And they, those in charge, here, will continue to fail.
Personally, I don’t mind if homicidal maniacs are tortured until every last drop of information is gleaned from their lips, then they can be executed like Nicholas Berg was, beheaded with a dull, rusty scimitar.
We’re in a war with crazy people who want to see us all dead, based on a religion of murder and death.
————-
Pentagon says 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:38pm GMT Email | Print | Share| Single Page[-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full SizeBy David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defence Intelligence Agency.
Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world,” he told reporters.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE50C6L620090113
First, there is no independent verification, and the Pentagon has been known to lie — look at all those generals shilling for the networks, pimping the Iraq war for purposes of Pentagon PR. Larry wrote about this, too, I think.
But, if it IS true, did the stint at GITMO cause this, much like Israel’s war v Hamas breeding new terrorists?
And if we don’t want to ask, or answer ANY of those those questions, we’re not smart enough for the job.
There will undoubtedly be numerous books published on this subject…some will make a buck.
The general public is so nervous now about the serious issues we are facing, they want to see the last of Bush and the rest of his team!
Their patience with investigations will be VERY limited, for they already view Congress as numb-skulls!
Me?
I’m no fan of Obama, but I’m buying a bottle of chamapgne for Inaguration Day, a “goodbye Cheney” gesture.
Those having to work under those morons in our government must be very very happy to see them go.
So the world loves Obama? Really?
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seen-any-good-anti-obama-iranian-protest-photos-lately/
We were just talking about this last week. If all of those individuals are tried for war crimes because of Iraq and people here in the U. S supports it, plan on testifying against them, drafting statements and going on record. Basicly when everyone starts rushing to the closest mic next week to state the truth. Do people realize that we are still deployed in Iraq? As soon as more stuff like this gains more traction, Bush & company leave, and this is played 24/7, because you know it will cause it gives the new admininstration a break. They are going to be picking us off over there left and right.
The downfall to this is that anyone believing watching and listening to people who didnt do or say anything when it would of made a difference start talking about what they knew, what they known and what happened.. You think the number of casualties will not skyrocket? I mean if your siding with them, of course they are going to retaliate.
Why cant people just hold there elected officials accountable for not standing up to this administration. NOW everyone wants to state what was wrong? Was something wrong with there ability to talk? I find it amazing that the asshole Colin Powell who sold this shit to us is off scott free because he endorsed Obama. Something his supporters love considering the fact he was the one who was using bogus fake aerial photo’s of fake facilities and fake vehicles transporting the fake WMD’s.
This is the biggest fear right now in the military community. Not Bush, i dont give a shit about him at this point. But the fact that when individuals and stories like this get pushed to the front and all of a sudden *discovered* to change the topic. People don’t realize that next week the Iraqi’s wont be trying to link hands with us singing kumba ya once everyone starts speaking out. Yeah right, they are going to see that as a blank check. Just like how when the iraqi journalist was called damn near a hero for hitting bush with those shoes on blogs and in the MSM. I am sure no one seen the report covered in the blogs and MSM since everyone loved it about the soldiers on patrol being pelted with shoes in the street and having to stand there and take it.
My point is this, I really don’t care about any of these individuals in the outgoing administration. At all. Since only speaking out against something wrong when everyone else agrees with you is a trait that is unfamiliar to me, my main concern is for my soldiers who believe that as soon as everyone all of a sudden develop a conscious, who should be just as guilty and charged just as well, start saying how wrong everything was and is. That the casualty rate will escalate based on the admission of guilt.
Since no one checks and verifies information any more or even question why information is just coming to light. It is a fear that they will be thrown to the wolves. I understand everyone now wants to be a team player, its just that I question any and everything. The most inexperienced and naive would no that this will have them over there taking us out left and right. I question these articles and time frame and look at them suspiciously because it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that if people here look as Iraq as illegal and as war crimes, they are going to take out those deployed on orders there based on a vote by your elected officials.
Wording is everything, and for some reason, I, do not believe certain individuals have our best interst at heart because this is just sloppy. When I read this portion:
Something is not right and I wish someone would recognize what is before them. What I read is careful wording of someone stating you think, either it is, or it isnt. You think of some horrendous physical act.
I have people scared, literally fearful, so this damn individual needs to be up front and center with there ducks in a row. Because stating: you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual might rile up the masses but it will cause a whole differnt outcome for us.
We are so quick to believe anything that is why we are not winning the war on jack shit. Read how that statement is worded. This article is written for you to draw a conclusion based on what you already know or expect from this outgoing administration. If we dont start becoming dilligent in questioning what it before us, we will never see what is coming.
I think the war effort is far more complex, Israel’s action in GAZA more causative of any retaliation than the exposure of torture.
We might see something, but I suppose, again, as with the Iaraeli action, I would simply ask for an increased troop alertness.
I would also think, with the inaguration, we might see a spike in terrorist attacks, simply to rattle Obama and his new adminstration.
Exposing torture, the criminality of Bush and co, is best for America, strengthening American democracy, removing the runts and kooks from positions of power.
Because it is the runts and kooks who got us into this mess in the first place.
And until they go, we fail.
Speaking of casualty rate, the gang violence on the west has returned to Pre-Clinton days, i.e. gang violence is so rampant that it mimics the early 90’s and late 80’s. We predicted this if nObama got in and he’s not even inaugurated yet.
I guess Cheney and Bush will leave office with millions more dollars than when they came into office.
sigh…..
Lest we allow his passage from the scene to go unheralded, remember that, vis-a-vis Shrubbie:
He Kept Our Boys Out of Northern Ireland!!!
It probably would have been better not to worry about prosecuting the terrorists…I’m sorry, I mean “Guantanamo inhabitants”. It would have been better for everyone to have shot them on the spot, or while trying to escape after questioning.
Yeah, sure.
What about the people run through the wringer at GITMO who finally got access to long-denied due process, and then turned out not to be guilty of anything?
When exactly did being a suspect become the equivalent of being guilty?
People were secretly kidnapped based on suspicion. They were secretly held, secretly interrogated, and sometimes secretly tortured. Information obtained from unreliable sources under extreme duress became the basis for further suspicions about other people. The intention was that such “evidence” could be ultimately be used as a basic for judgement by secret military tribunals; the accused wouldn’t even be informed of the particulars, or of the source of the information.
We don’t know a fraction of what went on at GITMO. We probably need to find out, if we want to be able to look the rest of the world in the eye with pride and call ourselves Americans. I don’t think we can’t do that by assigning responsibility. We have to take responsibility.
If Steve is being serious, he shows a lack of abilty understanding WHY GITMO represents such a weak link in America’s abilty to fight a war on terror.
Not that Steve is, but simple minded people with simplistic concepts of war simply cannot win.
As with Israel, the concept of “asymmetric war” isn’t even in their lexicon, and if it is, they really can’t grasp the meaning, much less the chaos.
They pretend.
And that’s OK for a civilain, but not for an American general.
Or American intelligence, either.
You really can’t win a war by planting stories in Newsweek, or the WAPO.
It’s my impression their level of expertise doesn’t extend much beyond asking Woodward for a favor.
Hence, they’re rather circular.