Daily Kos: PNAC Head Attacks Larry Johnson

PNAC Head Attacks Larry Johnson
by SusanHu [Subscribe]
Mon Jul 25th, 2005 at 17:01:07 CDT

Front-paged at BoomanTribune.com.

Update [2005-7-25 21:12:28 by SusanHu]: Below the fold, "JOHNSON versus PRESIDENT BUSH," a response from Larry Johnson.

Gawker-wannabe Gary Schmitt, the head of Project for a New American Century, shoots off his mouth in "Meet Larry Johnson," a snarky sniper piece at The Weekly Standard.

Well, it's good to see that the former CIA employee is now worried about the war on terror. But it's a bit late.



Larry C Johnson

With the rightwing smear machine gearing up to try to draw attention from the treasonous behavior of prominent White House officials who participated in the outting of CIA undercover officer, Valerie Plame, it is time to look back and determine who was right on Iraq? Me or the President?

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.

Reprinted below is the article I wrote in January 2003. My key warning is contained in the second paragraph. I wrote, "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 American and her citizens."

We just knew this had to happen, right? Johnson's and other intel experts' testimony on Friday was too damn credible. Yesterday, I posted this diary -- "Did MSM & GOP Blogs Cover Friday's Hearing? -- after finding no attack dogs. But, Monday's a new day:

Then a TPM visitor, seaflipper, posts this response that Johnson himself says he appreciates:

It would be quite helpful if the Weekly Standard actually honestly looked at the whole case that Johnson made on this whole issue:

Is Terrorism Getting Worse?

This data tells us where we have been, but does not tell us where we are going. Recent hype by President Clinton and Secretary Albright that we are facing a "new terrorist war" is not helpful. You cannot have a "new" war when the "old" war never ended. The United States has been fighting this threat for almost thirty years. Terrorism is not spiraling out of control but neither has it disappeared.

Well well, look at that, critical of Clinton...hmmm..partisan Democrat. YEP, he sure is.

Additionally, Johnson knows where the USA's biggest threat lies:

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.

Gee, he makes no bones about Osama being a big threat!

Clearly Johnson believes we are simply spending our money in the wrong way and he is critical of governement that just asks for money to support growing a military budget, which is what he says in his 2001 Op-Ed:

Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.

Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.

And even from his 2002 op-ed, it's clear that Johnson wasn't a "sit on your hands" kind of guy, which is how the Standard is tyring to portray him:

I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.
I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. 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.

No wonder the righties are going to go after Johnson, he actually makes sense!

It's good that Johnson can take them on, and that Yglesius, seaflipper, and us are willing to call the Schmitts of the world on their shit.

Like Haggai's post:

It's worth pointing out that Schmitt's dismissal of Johnson as someone with a "pre-9/11 mindset" consists entirely of quotes gathered from...before 9/11 happened. That's a heck of an argument! How we can possibly trust someone who exhibited a "pre-9/11 mindset" before 9/11 actually happened?

Yup. Schmitt is full of shit.

Daily Kos: PNAC Head Attacks Larry Johnson


Post a Comment

<< Home