| Revision as of 20:50, 30 April 2006 editCommodore Sloat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,928 edits rv to superior format as per talk← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:13, 30 April 2006 edit undoMerecat (talk | contribs)2,799 edits rv to Merecat - chronological order is bestNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Larry C. Johnson''' is a former ] of the U.S. ] as well as the ]'s ]. He is the CEO of ], LLC. He said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator ] (R-UT) helped opened doors for him at the CIA. . He left the CIA in 1989. A registered ] who supported ] in ], Johnson has since broken ranks with Republicans over the scandal surrounding the outing of CIA operative ]. Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on ] ] about the consequences arising from the ]. In addition to his differences with Republicans in the Plame matter, Johnson is also an outspoken opponent of the ] . On July 23, 2005, he spoke to the nation on behalf of Democrats in the party's weekly radio address and was featured in the 2004 political documentary '']'' | '''Larry C. Johnson''' is a former ] of the U.S. ] as well as the ]'s ]. He is the CEO of ], LLC. He said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator ] (R-UT) helped opened doors for him at the CIA. . He left the CIA in 1989. A registered ] who supported ] in ], Johnson has since broken ranks with Republicans over the scandal surrounding the outing of CIA operative ]. Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on ] ] about the consequences arising from the ]. In addition to his differences with Republicans in the Plame matter, Johnson is also an outspoken opponent of the ] . On July 23, 2005, he spoke to the nation on behalf of Democrats in the party's weekly radio address and was featured in the 2004 political documentary '']'' | ||
| == Pre-9/11 assessments of Islamic terrorism threat == | |||
| ==Commentary on intelligence affairs== | |||
| Ever since the ] broke, Johnson has made notable and sometimes controversial contributions to the public discourse on intelligence matters. He has been interviewed on the major networks and published commentary on the Plame affair and, more recently, the ] affair. | |||
| <!-- this section needs a lot of work, clearly, but this is the most notable portion of Johnson's work at this point --> | |||
| ===1998=== | |||
| ⚫ | == 2003 warnings to Bremer == | ||
| ⚫ | 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 assoicated 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.'' | ||
| ⚫ | 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." 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 ]. Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist ], 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." Johnson 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." | ||
| == |
===1999=== | ||
| ⚫ | After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, conservative pundit ] of the '']'' made reference to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the ] attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism. Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, ] said, "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong." Johnson's column, titled ''The Declining Terrorist Threat'', was published 10 July 2001 in the '']''. Johnson had written: | ||
| ⚫ | :''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.'' | ||
| ⚫ | Johnson defended himself from the attacks of pundits such as Schmitt, responding: "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 of 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States." | ||
| ⚫ | ==2000 |
||
| ⚫ | Johnson coauthored a piece in 2000 with ] that looked specifically at the threat posed by ] rather that at terrorism trends in general. The piece noted that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 pointed to a new threat that required "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations." The piece concluded: | ||
| ⚫ | :''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.'' | ||
| ==1999 Frontline interview== | |||
| In an interview with ]'s ] for its 1999 program, "Hunting for bin Laden," Johnson discussed ]. 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: | In an interview with ]'s ] for its 1999 program, "Hunting for bin Laden," Johnson discussed ]. 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 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."'' | :''"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 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."'' | ||
| Line 31: | Line 19: | ||
| :''"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."'' | :''"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."'' | ||
| ⚫ | ===2000=== | ||
| ==1998 article on terrorism== | |||
| ⚫ | Johnson coauthored a piece in 2000 with ] that looked specifically at the threat posed by ] rather that at terrorism trends in general. The piece noted that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 pointed to a new threat that required "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations." The piece concluded: | ||
| ⚫ | 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 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.'' | ||
| ⚫ | :''The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals assoicated 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.'' | ||
| ===2001=== | |||
| ⚫ | After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, conservative pundit ] of the '']'' made reference to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the ] attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism. Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, ] said, "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong." Johnson's column, titled ''The Declining Terrorist Threat'', was published 10 July 2001 in the '']''. Johnson had written: | ||
| ⚫ | :''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.'' | ||
| ⚫ | Johnson defended himself from the attacks of pundits such as Schmitt, responding: "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 of 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States." | ||
| ⚫ | == 2003 warnings to Bremer == | ||
| ⚫ | 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." 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 ]. Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist ], 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." Johnson 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." | ||
| == Quotes == | == Quotes == | ||
| Line 43: | Line 40: | ||
| "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.... Nonetheless, 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."(January 2003) | "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.... Nonetheless, 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."(January 2003) | ||
| ==Criticism== | ==Criticism of Johnson== | ||
| One of Johnson's strongest critics is |
Johnson has been criticized for an inability to reason properly. One of Johnson's strongest critics is Stephen Spruiell, a reporter with the ]. Johnson had criticized Spruiell for a failure of "journalistic standards." Spruiell felt he had to respond to set the record straight. At the close of his piece, Spruiell wrote: | ||
| :''It sucks that I have to interrupt my wedding to rebut this clueless publicity hound, but I’m not going to let him get away with claiming a monopoly on the capital-T Truth. For someone who has publicly demonstrated such faulty perception regarding the greatest threat of our time, I’m surprised Johnson is so arrogant.'' | :''It sucks that I have to interrupt my wedding to rebut this clueless publicity hound, but I’m not going to let him get away with claiming a monopoly on the capital-T Truth. For someone who has publicly demonstrated such faulty perception regarding the greatest threat of our time, I’m surprised Johnson is so arrogant.'' | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 30 April 2006
Larry C. Johnson is a former officer of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency as well as the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He is the CEO of Berg Associates, LLC. He said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped opened doors for him at the CIA. . He left the CIA in 1989. A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson has since broken ranks with Republicans over the scandal surrounding the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair. In addition to his differences with Republicans in the Plame matter, Johnson is also an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War . On July 23, 2005, he spoke to the nation on behalf of Democrats in the party's weekly radio address and was featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Pre-9/11 assessments of Islamic terrorism threat
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 assoicated 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.
1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, "Hunting for bin Laden," Johnson discussed Osama Bin Laden. 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 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."
In the interview, Johnson doubted Bin Laden organization's ability 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."
Frontline asked, " ... 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 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."
2000
Johnson coauthored a piece in 2000 with Milt Beardon that looked specifically at the threat posed by al-Qaeda rather that at terrorism trends in general. The piece noted that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 pointed to a new threat that required "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations." The piece concluded:
- 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.
2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, conservative pundit Richard Schmitt of the Weekly Standard made reference 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. Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, Slate Magazine said, "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong." Johnson's column, titled The Declining Terrorist Threat, was published 10 July 2001 in the New York Times. Johnson had written:
- 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.
Johnson defended himself from the attacks of pundits such as Schmitt, responding: "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 of 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States."
2003 warnings to Bremer
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." 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. 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." Johnson 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."
Quotes
"The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate. They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world."
"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.... Nonetheless, 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."(January 2003)
Criticism of Johnson
Johnson has been criticized for an inability to reason properly. One of Johnson's strongest critics is Stephen Spruiell, a reporter with the National Review Online. Johnson had criticized Spruiell for a failure of "journalistic standards." Spruiell felt he had to respond to set the record straight. At the close of his piece, Spruiell wrote:
- It sucks that I have to interrupt my wedding to rebut this clueless publicity hound, but I’m not going to let him get away with claiming a monopoly on the capital-T Truth. For someone who has publicly demonstrated such faulty perception regarding the greatest threat of our time, I’m surprised Johnson is so arrogant.
References
- Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," New York Times (10 July 2001) p. A19.
- Milt Bearden and Larry Johnson, "A Glimpse at the Alliances of Terror," New York Times (7 November 2000) p. A29.
- Gary Schmitt, "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official turned Democratic spokesman has a pre-9/11 mindset," The Weekly Standard (25 July 2005).
External links
- Personal weblog
- B.E.R.G. Associates
- Testimony of 22 July 2005.
- Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," (27 January 2003)
- http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/26.html#a8055 Interview