Larry C. Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2006)

Larry C. Johnson
Johnson testifying in Congress on July 22, 2005.
Born	Kansas City, Missouri
Residence	Washington, D.C.
Nationality	American
Education	Ph.D. in Political Science; M.S. in Community Development; B.S. in Sociology
Occupation	international business consultant
Title	CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC
Known for	terrorism expert; commentator on national security topics; former intelligence officer of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
Political party	Republican
Website No Quarter

Larry C. Johnson is a former intelligence officer of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where he served for four years, until 1989, when he became deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, until October 1993. He is the 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. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence, and has been critical of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama during the 2008 election cycle. He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.^[1]

Contents 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 2005 2.8 2006 2.9 2007 2.10 2008 2.10.1 Michelle Obama rumor 3 Notes 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Background

On July 23, 2005, when Johnson spoke to the nation on behalf of Democrats in the party's weekly radio address, he said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped to "open doors" for him at the CIA.^[2] A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, in his Democratic Radio Address broadcast on July 23, 2005, Johnson criticized the Bush administration for their role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.^[3] In addition to his differences with Republicans in the Plame matter, Johnson is also an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War^[4] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.^[5] 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 commentary on the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.

[edit] Views

[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^{[citation needed]}:

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.

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."^[8]

[edit] 1999

In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.^[9] 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.^[10]

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.^[11]

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 of 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 agent, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal. 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] 2005

Posting on 13 July 2005, as a guest blogger at TPM Cafe, Johnson argues:

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

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 publicly identified a CIA NOC. They have set a [precedent] 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.^[26]

[edit] 2006

In June of 2006, in a post on his personal 'blog (www.noquarter.typepad.com) entitled "Sacrificing Our Troops on the Altar of Republican Politics," Johnson attacked Karl Rove personally for characterizing the Iraqi war policies of certain Democrats, including war veterans Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), as "cutting and running"; after making some pejorative remarks about Rove, Johnson writes:

It would be one thing if his vile tactics were simply mere smears of politicians like Kerry and Murtha. They are big boys and should be able to defend themselves quite ably against this turd. But Rove, like Josef Goebbels, has used fear and smear as his primary tools to keep George Bush in power. And to what end? . . . The time has come to say enough. This is not about Democrat, or Independent, or Republican. This is a fight for the soul of this nation. Karl Rove may have cut a deal to stay out of jail and avoid prosecution, but that does not free him to attack the patriotism of Americans who care deeply about their country and its security. I will guarantee you one thing--Karl's mom would not be proud.^[27]

In July of 2006 Johnson criticized Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ordering of military operations against Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers:

Apparently not content to let the U.S. do a self-immolation act in the Middle East by itself, Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Burn baby burn? Like George Bush, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through. In fact, Olmert reportedly never even served in the military. I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations--what is their strategic military objective. Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically, and in the process become really stupid. The events in the next several weeks will expose as myth the canard that you can secure a nation by killing terrorists. No you can't. Killing 'terrorists' has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military obective. It is a tactical objective and may serve political purposes, but achieves little in terms of securing Israel. Israel is attacking targets in Lebanon like a drunken sailor in a bar fight. Flailing about, causing significant damage, hitting innocent bystanders, and generally making a mess of things. This is not the Israeli military that pulled off the brilliant and daring raid at Entebbe.^[28]

Although Johnson's offhand comment about Olmert, who did indeed serve with the Israel Defense Forces in the Golani combat brigade, was erroneous,^[29] after Israel accepted the UN ceasefire without securing the release of its missing soldiers while Hezbollah enhanced its stature, viewed retrospectively, Johnson's overall perspective appears prescient.^{[citations needed]}

Further information: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Reviews of the conflict

In his further comments on that conflict, Johnson emphasized the evil nature of killing children by both terrorists and their combatants throughout history. His answer to his titular question "When Is Killing Children Right?" is never:

Despite history, we learn nothing. Muslims angry at Jews justify killing Jewish children. Jews angry at Muslims justify killing Muslim children. And Christians, angry at Muslims, Bhuddists, Communists, and other Christians, have justified killing all of those children. . . . At some point, this madness must stop. Killing children in the name of fighting terrorism is evil, regardless who does it.^[30]

[edit] 2007

On June 29, 2007, Johnson posted a diary on the popular progressive weblog DailyKos. ^[31] In this diary, entitled "London Bomb--What a Crock of Crap!!", Johnson scorned the media response to the Haymarket bomb plot, calling it a "crock of crap" and an "overreaction."

[edit] 2008

In 2008, Johnson has emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. He has "briefed Senator Clinton" and has dedicated several blog entries to praising her, even writing that "she is gracious, charming, and can laugh at herself."^[32][33][34] He claimed on May 8 that "Hillary has more popular votes."^[35] On March 30 he wrote that "Hillary has not used invective or insult of any kind against Obama or anyone associated with his campaign. Hillary has fought to eliminate such vile talk from the public arena."^[36]

Johnson has devoted several blog entries to examining Obama's past and has concluded that Obama has "Memory Loss", "is lying about significant portions of his life", and is "deliberately deceptive and misleading."^[37][38][39] Johnson has asserted that "Obama and his campaign are working hard to obfuscate and cover up".^[40]

On May 14, 2008, after Obama appeared to lock up the Democratic nomination, Johnson wrote "Hillary needs to stay in the campaign till the end because by the time August rolls around the damage to Barack will be so significant that rational folks will realize he is unelectable notwithstanding the mess Republicans have made of things. My advice? Patience. Let Barack have his codpiece, 'Mission Accomplished' moment. Like George Bush, he will rue his strutting and preening and declaring premature victory. Reality will intrude."^[41]

[edit] Michelle Obama rumor

According to The Observer^[42], Johnson promulgated on his blog that "I know for a fact that Barack and Michelle Obama would like the tape of her blasting "whitey" during a rant at Jeremiah Wright’s church to never see the light of day." Since Johnson's allegation was posted, a McClatchy reporter asked Obama about the rumor. Obama responded, "We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it."

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Bearden, Milt, and Larry Johnson. "A Glimpse at the Alliances of Terror." The New York Times 7 November 2000: 29.
• Iraq and the War on Terror. Frontline PBS. Online featured programs. Accessed 19 November 2006.
• Johnson, Larry C.. "The Declining Terrorist Threat." The New York Times 10 July 2001:A19.
• –––. "The Myth of Terrorism, Part Deux." No Quarter (personal blog) 2 July 2006, accessed 19 November 2006.
• –––. "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. Accessed 19 November 2006.
• –––. "Stories by Larry C. Johnson." AlterNet. (Indexed archive with hyperlinks.) Accessed 20 November 2006.
• Olbermann, Keith. "'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 25: Read the transcript to the Tuesday show." Guests: Larry Johnson, Greg Mitchell, Rick Klein, Jerry Della Femina, Paul Mooney. Countdown with Keith Olbermann MSNBC 25 April 2006. Transcript posted on MSNBC on 26 April 2006. Accessed 19 November 2006.
• Schmitt, Gary. "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset." Daily Standard (blog) 25 July 2005. Accessed November 20, 2006.
• York, Byron. "NR/Digital: The Media: Mr. Counterterrorism Guru: He Says He’s Not, But Others Say He Is." National Review Online 5 June 2006. Accessed 19 November 2006.

[edit] External links

• No Quarter Personal blog
• BERG Associates (Business Exposure Reduction Group); CEO, Larry C. Johnson
• Interview on the Randi Rhodes show (7 March 2007).