Author: Larry Johnson

by Larry Johnson

The Richard Cohen piece in today’s Washington Post was outrageous. Here are the facts. – LJ

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald understands very well that something beyond a crime was committed when Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and other White House operatives spread the name of undercover CIA officer, Valerie Plame, around Washington as part of a coordinated effort to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson.

Someone needs to alert Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen that he is a nitwit and moron for trying to advance White House supplied talking points that no real crime occurred.

Here are some of the facts that will come out when Fitzgerald ends his investigation:

1. Valerie Plame was still a non-official cover officer in July 2003 when her identity was revealed by colostomy bag Bob Novak.
   

   
   

2. Valerie Plame had traveled overseas on secret missions using that cover as required under the statute in question.
   

   
   

3. Valerie Plame’s exposure also almost compromised the identity of other non-official cover officers.
   

   
   

4. Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send her husband on the Niger mission and in fact did not make the decision.

Other mental midgets like Cohen, such as Victoria Toensing, continue to insist that no crime could have been committed because Valerie Plame, “worked at a desk job”. Newsflash for these so-called Washington insiders who have proven they know nothing about the intelligence community–at least 40% of the people working at CIA Headquarters are working undercover. Just because they may physically go to the CIA building in McLean, Virginia everyday does not mean that their relationship with the CIA is acknowledged.

During my four years of sitting at a desk at CIA I was undercover. My position with the CIA was not even known by my own parents. Only my wife was privy to that secret. Many of the undercover folks still working at CIA are at headquarters on a temporary basis. Some travel overseas on temporary assignments that last less than a month. Others await a semi-permanent posting for a two or three year stint overseas.

The point that Cohen and the other White House hacks have missed is that protecting the identities of intelligence officers, whether they are working under official or non-official cover, is part of national defense. To compromise these identities is to commit an act of treason.

Patrick Fitzgerald understands that he must prosecute within the confines of the law. However, he also understands that what was done to the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson was more than a rough game of inside the beltway hardball. Karl Rove told Chris Matthews that “Wilson’s wife is fair game”. Not only was she an unfair target, but in going after her the White House political crew unwittingly exposed several intelligence assets and caused the loss of intelligence assets overseas.

Richard Cohen is dead wrong to argue that the best thing Patrick Fitzgerald can do is leave town. To the contrary, the best thing Patrick Fitzgerald can do is a send a clear message to politicians in both parties that when it comes to political hardball intelligence assets must be kept out of the game. At the end of the day our nation’s security is no game, it is a matter of life and death.

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by
Larry C Johnson

With friends like the Italians who needs enemies? If Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are indicted they can shift some of the blame to the Italians. If it were not for Italy, Joe Wilson probably never would have been sent to Africa to investigate the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and the ensuing chain of events to smear Wilson would not have happened.

A careful review of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on the Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (July 2004) shows very clearly that there was only one source claiming that Iraq was buying the uranium. Shades of Curveball! Except in this case the source was not an Iraqi linked to Ahmed Chalabi, but a foreign liaison service. Knowledgeable friends say it was the Italian Intelligence Service (SISME).

SISME provided the CIA with three separate intelligence reports that Iraq had reached an agreement with Niger to buy 500 tons of yellowcake uranium (October 15, 2001; February 5, 2002; and March 25, 2002). (See Expanded PlameGate Timeline below). The second report from February was the subsequent basis for a DIA analysis, which led Vice President Cheney to ask CIA for more information on the matter. That request led to the CIA asking Ambassador Joe Wilson to go check out the story in Niger.

Even in the much maligned October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the entire intelligence community remained split on the reliability of the Iraq/Niger claim. During briefings subsequent to the publication of the NIE, senior CIA officials repeatedly debunked the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. They also dismissed as unreliable reports from Great Britain, which also were derived from the faulty Italian intelligence reports.

Italy’s SISME also reportedly had a hand in producing the forged documents delivered to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in early October 2003 that purported to show a deal with Iraq to buy uranium. Many in the intelligence community are convinced that a prominent neo-con with longstanding ties to SISME played a role in the forgery. The truth of that proposition remains to be proven. This much is certain, either SISME or someone with ties to SISME, helped forge and circulate those documents which some tried to use to bolster the case to go to war with Iraq.

Although some in the intelligence community, specifically analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), believed the report, the intelligence community as a whole did not put much stock in the reports and forged documents, and repeatedly told policy makers that these reports were not reliable. Despite being rebuffed repeatedly by the intelligence community on these questions, policymakers persisted in trying to make the fraudulent case.

Two weeks before President Bush spoke the infamous 16 words in the January 2003 State of the Union speech, the Department of Defense was fanning the flames about Iraq’s alleged Nigerien uranium shopping trip. Starting in late 2001, senior Department of Defense officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith, provided favored military talking heads with talking points and briefings to reinforce messages the Administration wanted the public to remember. One of those who frequently attended these affairs, Robert Maginnis, published an op-ed on January 15, 2003 subsequent to one of the briefings. In writing about the case for attacking Iraq, Maginnis affirmed that Saddam, “failed to explain why Iraq manufactures fuels suited only for a class of missile that it does not admit to having and why it sought to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger.”

Notwithstanding repeated efforts by intelligence analysts to downplay these intelligence reports as unreliable, DOD officials fanned the flames. This, my friends, is one example of “cooking intelligence.”

These facts further expose as farce the Bush Administration’s effort to blame the CIA for the misadventure in Iraq. We did not go to war in Iraq primarily because of bad intelligence and bad analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Bush Administration started a war of choice.

BELOW, more analysis, and an extended timeline of the case:
While CIA did make mistakes and while some key members of the National Intelligence Council were willing to drink the neo-con kool-aid and go along with the White House, when it came to questions of whether Iraq was buying uranium in Niger or if Saddam was working with Bin Laden, CIA and INR analysts consistently got it right and told the Administration what they did not want to hear. It was policymakers, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, NSC Chief Condoleeza Rice, and SecDef Don Rumsfeld, who ignored what the analysts were saying and writing.

EXPANDED PLAMEGATE TIMELINE:

October 15, 2001: CIA issued a report from a foreign intelligence service that claimed Niger was going to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq. Report indicated that:

• The sale was negotiated sometime in 1999

  
  

• It was approved by the Niger state court

  
  

• That Nigerien President Tandju approved the deal and communicated this to Saddam Hussein.

CIA, DIA, and DOE considered the report plausible but INR discounted it because the French consortium controlled the uranium industry in Niger. CIA analysts concluded that even if such a purchase took place Iraq had no facilities for processing or enriching the uranium.

Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation) By Patrick Lang Editor: Larry C. Johnson

20 November 2001: U.S. Embassy in Niger reported that there “was no possibility” that Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its mines based on its discussions with the Director General of Niger’s French led consortium. (SIC p. 37).

5 February 2002: The same foreign intelligence service that provided the original report on the Niger/Iraq allegation provided more details about the Niger/Iraq agreement reported in the October 2001 report. The new information did not resolve the doubts within the intelligence community expressed by INR. DO maintained the source was credible.

12 February 2002: DIA wrote a in the National Military Joint Intelligence Center Executive Highlight (Vo. 028-02) a note based on the 5 February report and concluded that, “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program”. No judgment was offered about the credibility of the reporting.

13 February 2002: Vice President Cheney asked the to find out the truth about the DIA intel report (SIC pages 38 and 39).

19 February 2002: CIA managers in the Counter Proliferation Division convened a meeting of intelligence community analysts to meet with Ambassador Joe Wilson in response to the Vice President’s request for more information. Ambassador Wilson’s wife introduced her husband and left the meeting. She had neither the authority nor the means to hire her husband. This was a decision made by her supervisors.

26 February 2002: Ambassador Wilson arrived in Niger on 26 February and determined during the course of his visit that there was no substance to the allegation that Iraq was trying to procure uranium in Niger.

1 March 2002: INR publishes an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely

Early March: Vice President Cheney asks his CIA briefer for an update on the Niger issue.

5 March 2002: Two CIA DO officers debrief Ambassador Wilson and draft an intelligence report. (SIC, p. 43)

8 March 2002: Intelligence report disseminated based on Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger. (SIC, p. 43) The CIA rated the report as “good”, because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the intelligence community. (SIC p. 46)

25 March 2002: The same foreign intelligence service responsible for the previous intel reports on the Niger/Iraq uranium deal provided “new” information claiming that Niger would supply 500 tons of uranium a year to Iraq.

10 May 2002: CIA’s Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis prepared a Principals Committee briefing book that noted the claim, “a foreign government service says Iraq was trying to acquire 500 tons of uranium.” CIA analyst was inclined to believe the report but the INR analyst disagreed.

24 June 2002: U.S. Embassy in Niger reports that Government of Niger signed a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

22 July 2002: DOE published a note in the Daily Intelligence Highlight asking if Iraq was trying to reconstitute its nuclear programs. The note identified three indicators that Iraq might be trying but noted that there was no evidence that any uranium had arrived in Iraq.

1 August 2002: CIA’s NESA published a paper on Iraq’s WMD capabilities and did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information.

September 2002: DIA published an intelligence assessment arguing that Iraq was trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake. This report was not coordinated with any other members of the intelligence community. (SIC, p. 48)

My List of Favorite Books – Larry C. Johnson Charlie Wilson’s War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History by George Crile The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB by Milt Bearden This landmark collaboration between a 30-year veteran of the CIA and a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist tells the true story of the generation of spies who came of age in the shadow of the Cuban missile crisis and rose through the ranks to run the CIA and KGB in the last days of the Cold War. JIHAD: The Trail of Political Islam by Gilles Kepel Fiction that could be true: Memorial Day by Vince Flynn Novel: “Fearless counterterrorism operative Mitch Rapp is called upon to fight against the world’s most deadly terrorists in this harrowing political thriller by New York Times bestselling author Vince Flynn.” Black by Christopher Whitcomb, a former FBI Special Agent/Sniper Novel: “Special Agent Jeremy Waller, chosen as a member of the FBI’s elite group Hostage Rescue Team, quickly finds that his missions are taking him off the map, and into the world of black ops.”

24 September 2002: British White Paper is published alleging that Iraq has sought significant quantities of uranium from Iraq.

September 2002: CIA analyst had a conversation with an NSC staffer while coordinating a speech. The CIA analyst recommended removing any reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium. The NSC staffer protested and said that would leave the British “flapping in the wind”.

25 September 2002: Interagency meeting to discuss draft of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs included the judgment, “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeededin acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from [African] these sources”. (SIC p. 52) During the drafting of the NIE, there was a difference within the CIA between the WINPAC analyst and the NESA analyst over the allegation that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger.

6 October 2002: CIA Director Tenet intercedes with Deputy NSC Chief Hadley to remove reference regarding Iraq trying to acquire uranium from planned speech in Cincinnati.

9 October 2002: Documents delivered to US Embassy in Rome (this was two days after President Bush presented the speech in Cincinnati sans the uranium reference) that appeared to document the Iraq/Niger transaction. Prior to this, members of the National Security staff and some key members of the NIC had pushed the Iraq/Niger story.

18 December 2002: Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs asks Under Secretary John Bolton to help develop a fact sheet rebutting Iraq’s claims it was complying with UN requirements.

15 January 2003: An op-ed by Robert Maginnis reveals that the Defense Department was providing classified information to private citizens to advance its campaign to go to war with Iraq. Maginnis wrote about Saddam, “He also failed to explain why Iraq manufactures fuels suited only for a class of missile that it does not admit to having and why it sought to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger.” [DOD, specifically Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and others, provided regular background briefings to TV pundits like Maginnis. Despite being discounted by the intelligence community, the pundits were being briefed that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

28 January 2003: President Bush delivers State of the Union with the claim that Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

6 May 2003: Nick Kristof writes, “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.”

mid-May 2003: According to the Washington Post, after the Krstof piece the Vice President’s office pressed the CIA to find out how the trip was arranged, because Cheney did not know that a query he made much earlier to a CIA briefer about a report alleging Iraq was seeking Niger uranium had triggered Wilson’s trip.

10 June 2003: State Dept. memo is written on the 2-19-02 CIA meeting at Langley, Va. Where it was first discussed whether to send Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the yellowcake rumors. This is the first known mention of Valerie “Wilson” and her relationship to Joseph Wilson. Memo reportedly implies that Valerie Wilson played a major role in the meeting even though she reportedly only introduced her husband and then left the meeting after about 4 minutes.

23 June 2003: Newly discovered notes taken by Judith Miller of the New York Times document discussion between her and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby regarding Joseph Wilson.

6 July 2003: Ambassador Wilson New York Times op-ed appears outlining what he learned during his mission to Niger on behalf of the CIA.

14 July 2003: Robert Novak publishes piece identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA official

23 September 2003: CIA files referral for criminal investigation with the Department of Justice.

………………………………..

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by Larry C. Johnson

The investigation into who in the Bush Administration leaked the name of CIA non-official cover case officer, Valerie Plame aka Mrs. Joseph Wilson, is winding down. Unfortunately the media is primed to paint the outing of Valerie as a non-issue if no indictments are forthcoming. Regardless of whether anyone in the Bush Administration is indicted, what was done to Valerie Plame Wilson was wrong and morally reprehensible. Rather than hold members of his Administration to the highest ethical and moral standards, President George W. Bush has not only lowered lowered the standard of acceptable conduct by members of his Administration, his actions and inactions have weakened the CIA and its ability to accomplish its various national security missions.

Based on recent discussions with a variety of friends who do not have experience with the intel community and have not followed this case closely, I believe it useful to get some key facts on the record. Again, whether there is or is not an indictment, the Republican spin machine will be out in force spreading lies and it is critical that the citizens of this country have clear facts to judge the truth of the matter.

Here is the timeline with sources:

Oct 05, 2005 — 10:05:09 PM EST

FACT 1 — Vice President Cheney asked the CIA on 13 February 2002 to find out the truth about intel reports that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

According to the Senate Intelligence report on pages 38 and 39:

After reading the report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA ‘s analysis of the issue. In response, the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) published a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR021402-OS),an intelligence assessment with limited distribution, which said, “information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated. The piece discussed the details of the DO intelligence report and indicated that “some of the information in the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. US diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger ‘s two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production.” The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service-.

Officials from the CIA ‘s DO Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) told Senate Intelligence Committee staff that, in response toquestions from the Vice President’s Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. Who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.

FACT 2 — Valerie Wilson did not hire her husband to go on the mission.

According to the CIA, Valerie Wilson did not make the decision to send her husband to Niger. Valerie Plame Wilson was a non-official cover officer (aka NOC) in the Directorate of Operations Counter Proliferation Division (CPD). She worked in a branch with other undercover officers. She reported to a Chief, who in turn reported to the Chief of the CPD. The Office Chief, the Division Chief, and the Branch Chief are the only decision makers at the CIA outside of the DCI himself who can make a decision to send someone on a trip overseas. CPD convened a meeting of intelligence community analysts on 19 February to meet with Ambassador Joe Wilson. Ambassador Wilson’s wife introduced her husband and left the meeting. She had neither the authority or the means to hire her husband. This was a decision made by her supervisors.

More facts BELOW:

FACT 3 — Ambassador Wilson arrived in Niger on 26 February and determined during the course of his visit that there was no substance to the allegation that Iraq was trying to procure uranium in Niger.

According to the July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report, U.S. Ambassador to Niger told the Senate Committee staff that Ambassador Wilson had reached the same conclusion as the Embassy–i.e., nothing was going on.

FACT 4 — During early March 2002, Vice President Cheney asks his CIA briefer for an update on the Niger issue.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Cheney had not forgotten his original request. Flowing from this request, CIA officers debriefed Ambassador Wilson on the results of his trip, wrote up the report, and disseminated the report on 8 March (p. 42 of the Senate report).

FACT 5 — In the fall of 2002, CIA officials repeatedly warned Administration and Congressional officials not to accept as fact the claim that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium.

According to p. 54 of the Senate report, the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency told Senator Kyl that the CIA did not agree with the British view that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. On October 6, 2002 CIA Director Tenet called Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley and warned him not to use the information in a Presidential speech alleging that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. Hadley had the passage removed from the speech (p. 56).

FACT 6 — In his State of the Union Address in January 28, 2003, the President included information the CIA previously had refused to clear.

The President, attributing information to the British Government, said, “Iraq sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” This was included despite the fact that the CIA had previously warned the Administration and the Congress that the info was not credible.

FACT 7 — Instigated by Vice President Cheney, the White House pressed the the CIA for information about a claim in a NY Times column that the Vice President had instigated Wilson’s trip.

According to the Washington Post, after a May 23rd piece by NYT columnist Nick Kristof,

… former senior CIA officials said the vice president’s office pressed the CIA to find out how the trip was arranged, because Cheney did not know that a query he made much earlier to a CIA briefer about a report alleging Iraq was seeking Niger uranium had triggered Wilson’s trip. “They were very uptight about the vice president being tagged that way,” a former senior CIA official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. “They asked questions that set [off] a chain of inquiries.”

FACT 8 — Sometime in June 2003 the White House, with the participation of Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, conceived and executed a plan to discredit Joe Wilson.

A variety of press reports show that as early as the end of May, White House officials were engaged in trying to find out about the particulars of Joe Wilson. According to press reports, the State Department drafted a Top Secret memo in June of 2003 that identified Valerie Plame by her maiden name.

FACT 9 — Rober Novak, citing two Administration sources, identified Valerie Plame by name as a CIA officier on July 13, 2003.

FACT 10 — Valerie Plame was still undercover when Bob Novak published her name.

Although Valerie had been based in the United States for several years, her cover was intact until compromised by White House officials. She had conducted several overseas missions as part of her cover job. Although she was in the process of moving from non-official cover to official cover status, she was still undercover.

Apart from the cowardly and tawdry effort of the Bush Administration to smear Ambassador Wilson for the simple fact of telling them they had their facts wrong, the outing of Valerie Plame marks the first time in the post-World War Two era that government officials with security clearances participated in the deliberate outing of a CIA officer. It does not matter whether she was under official or non-official cover. It does not matter whether she was sitting at a desk or working overseas. What does matter is that elected officials entrusted with the responsibility to protect national security secrets chose to break this trust for petty political reasons.

I don’t know if Karl Rove or Lewis Libby or others will be indicted. But this much is certain: What was done to Valerie Plame was an outrageous betrayal. If the President cannot recognize or acknowledge that simple fact, he does not deserve to be the Commander in Chief of the United States. It does not have to be illegal to be wrong. Mr. President, people under your command have done wrong and you sit idly by doing nothing to hold them accountable. Sadly, this is the common theme of your Administration.

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by Larry C. Johnson

Just like a doomed relationship between a wife beater and a woman knocked senseless too many times, the Kurds are discovering that they are in a bad marriage with an abusive spouse. According to various press reports Kurdish leaders, including President Talabani, have complained to Shia Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari that the coalition’s Shia parties, known as the United Alliance, are welching on promises to start work on resettling Kurds in the northern city of Kirkuk and to fairly distribute government positions between the coalition parties.

Gee whiz. The Shias promised to share and now they, by virtue of their status as the majority population in Iraq, are laying claim to their self-perceived right to rule the country as they please. It seems that the Kurds have fallen victim to the same fantasy based approach to policy and politics in Iraq that afflicts the Bush Administration.

Wait! It gets worse. Friends in the intelligence community tell me that some of the more moderate Shias are beginning to grumble because Shia groups allied with Iran are becoming more assertive. In short, Iran will do whatever it takes to ensure that it’s supporters in Iraq come out on top.

Notwithstanding the loud whistling past the graveyard of Iraqi democracy by Bush Administration offiicials and neo-con cheerleaders, the central fact is that the upcoming election to ratify the Iraqi Constitution will do nothing to solve the insurgency and civil war. In fact, regardless of the outcome on October 15, the Iraqi civil war will continue.

The reality of the civil war and the failure of the Iraqi Army to serve as a credible force for the security of the new nation trying to emerge will hit the world square between the eyes. Our senior political and military officials in the United States continued insistence on proclaiming that black is white and up is down is hurting both the American and the Iraqi peoples. We cannot keep saying the Iraqi military is getting stronger when the number of units capable of operating independently decline. We cannot keep saying we are winning the war on terrorism when the number of terrorist attacks keeps increasing and the number of jihadist terrorists expands. And, we cannot continue to describe what is going on in Iraq as the “birth of democracy.”

This kind of delusional mindset may be tolerated in the rubber rooms of psychiatric hospitals but it has no place in the White House or the Green Zone. It would appear that the Kurdish leaders are finally waking up to confront what has been the reality for almost two years–i.e., that the Shia are in a strong position to control the new Iraq and will assert their power in support of their own kind. Maybe President Talabani can talk some sense to President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, General Casey, and General Abizaid about the reality on the ground in Iraq. Until then, we’ll just have to grit our teeth as we watch the “wife beaters” run amuck while our leaders sing the praises of family harmony in Iraq. This is beyond sad, it is dangerous.

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

By Larry C Johnson

George Bush got it partially right yesterday (Thursday, September 22) when he said that mistakes made by three of his predecessors, including the Reagan administration, had emboldened terrorists and helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks. Unfortunately he ignored the role his own actions have played in making terrorism worse and pushing the Middle East to the brink of a new war. Instead, the President blindly insisted that he is taking America on the right path in Iraq to confront the threat of terrorism. On that point he is wrong; dead wrong.

Why is he wrong? The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is doing the exact opposite of what Bush says U.S. policy was supposed to achieve:

• Instead of reducing terrorism, Islamic terrorism is spreading dramatically.
  

  
  

• Instead of winning new supporters for democracy, the war in Iraq is spurring the recruitment and training radical jihadists.
  

  
  

• Instead of creating a “City on the Hill” that other nations in the Middle East will emulate, Iraq is fissuring and setting the stage for a regional ethnic and religious civil war.

Rising Terrorism

The American-led invasion of Iraq has produced unprecedented surge in terrorist attacks that kill and wound people. Data collected by the Central Intelligence Agency, which goes back to 1985, shows that the number of international terrorist attacks declined steadily from 1987 until 2002. 2003, however, was a watershed moment. The total number of attacks (208) increased slightly over the previous year. However, 80% of those attacks involved someone being killed or wounded. The perpetrators of most of those violent attacks were radical Islamists.

In 2004 the terrorist numbers went thru the roof (and the Bush Administration tried to cover this up). The number of significant terrorist attacks (i.e., an attack in which someone is killed, wounded or kidnapped or there is damage in excess of $10,000) surged from 175 to almost 700. These numbers are without historical precedent. In other words, we have never had a time (since the CIA started keeping the statistics in 1968) that was this high. While a large number of these attacks occurred in Iraq, Iraq did not account for the majority of the deadly events.

Building the Next Generation of Terrorists

The insurgency is a complicated mix of groups foreign and domestic, but foreigners do not make up the bulk. Nonetheless, the foreign influence is growing and the U.S. presence in Iraq is serving to radicalize Islamic youth that previously were willing to spend their time playing soccer and listen to Western music.

How do I know? Foreign officials with the job of tracking and fighting aspiring terrorists tell me so. During the last year I have provided briefings on terrorist trends to senior leaders from Pakistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Mali. Although they come from different countries they convey the same message—what the hell are you doing?

Our friends and allies naively believe that we have a plan and know what we are doing. Nonetheless, they also tell me that just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created Bin Laden and his ilk that our invasion of Iraq is creating the next generation of terrorists. They see that their societies are becoming more anti-U.S. than pro. They see a new generation of idealistic youth falling under the conviction that God (Allah) is calling them to fight the infidel. They are genuinely afraid that we have lit a fuze on a bomb that will detonate in the next few years unless we demonstrate we are in control.

A cultural side note. The countries in the Middle East genuinely believe that we are encouraging and cultivating the suicide bombers and the break up of Iraq. Why? Because they cannot conceive that a country as large and powerful as the United States could be impotent to deal with this threat. Instead, they are convinced that we have a secret plan we are not sharing with them. They believe that our sincere goal is to create chaos and control the oil resources. They look at me with disbelief and bewilderment when I tell them there is no secret plan and we are as incompetent as they fear.

BELOW: Yugoslavia on Crack
Yugoslavia on Crack

Today’s New York Times reported that Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said Thursday that he had been warning the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, a development that he said could drag the region into war. This is not the wild ravings of a crazy man. This is a cold, honest assessment from someone who really believes he is still a friend of the United States.

Our actions are confusing the hell out of our friends. They look at Iran, who has been the largest most prolific sponsor of terrorism since 1980, expand its influence among the Iraqi shia with our help. The Iranians attacked us, Saddam didn’t, yet we are helping the Iranians (at least from our friends’ perspective). The Saudis (and others) scratch their heads as they watch us give the shia militia carte blanche to establish their power. The Saudis understand that the Shia are keen on solidifying their power. They wonder why we don’t see this.

What the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Omanis and the Abu Dhabis understand is that the Sunni tribes will go to any length to defend themselves and their families from the corruption represented by Shia rule. Think for a moment what a small town in Texas, habitually under the control of Southern Baptists, would do if a group of Catholics or Hasidic Jews moved into town and took control of the political process. While an incomplete analogy, this scenario offers a taste of what is in store for Iraq.

Unlike the international intervention in Yugoslavia, there is not a firm international consensus to fight against the fragmentation of the Iraqi society. Prince Faisal, I fear, is a prophet. In the coming years the United States may face the unsavory prospect of actually having to invade Saudi Arabia to secure and protect its access to oil. In the meantime, the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking terrorism and becoming a rallying point for our enemies.

Before George Bush tries to pick the splinter out of the eyes of his father, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, he may want to spend some time removing the huge beam lodged in his iris.

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by Larry C. Johnson

If the U.S. military on the ground in Iraq continues to engage in wishful, delusional thinking we are in trouble. I say this after reading a comment from a senior unnamed U.S. military official in the Los Angeles Times who was “analyzing” the import of yesterday’s bloody coordinated car bomb attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq. According to the anonymous officer:

Personal Blog: No Quarter Bio Recommended Books More BoomanTribune Stories

“the attacks were evidence of insurgents’ weakness against Iraq’s nascent security forces. The insurgents “failed to stand up to the assault up north, so they slink away and kill civilians in Baghdad,” he said. “It is astonishing that they can try to claim some victory from pure murder.”

Weakness? Are you kidding? Have you been asleep for the last year?

The so-called victory in Tall Afar is fleeting and counter productive to the Iraqi Government’s effort to defeat the insurgents and create a stable, orderly society. For starters, the insurgents are not cooperating. They are not digging in and fighting to the last man. No Davy Crockett fighting to the last breath at the Alamo moment. They fight, retreat, regroup, and pop up somewhere else.

Anyone who has ever tried to punch or squeeze a bag of Jello knows that if you push in one spot it will bulge out in another. Only if you can contain the entire bag can you crush it. Neither the illusionary Iraqi security forces nor the United States military have sufficient strength on the ground in Iraq to cover the Jello bag that is the insurgency. …

Continued BELOW:
We push in one spot and they pop up in two or three other spots. Consequently, we “crush” the insurgency in Fallujah, displace the population, destroy the infrastructure, then withdraw from the city only to see the insurgents and their supporters return.

Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation) By Patrick Lang Editor: Larry C. Johnson

Here are the metrics that military analysts ought to worry about:

1. The Iraqi force that attacked Tall Afar was comprised largely of Kurdish Peshmerga (i.e., Kurdish militia). They attacked an ethnic area populated largely by Turkmen, their ancestral enemies. Instead of sowing the seeds of peace and inspiring confidence among the populace that the new Iraqi Government will protect them, the people of Tall Afar now have a new story about the atrocities of the Kurds to tell their children. Another grievance to fuel the cycle of vengeance and violence that has marked the history of the tribes and ethnic groups inhabiting Iraq.

2. The Sunni insurgents are willing and eager to murder Shias with no regard to what the outside world might think about such a horror. The grotesque and shocking images of mutilated school children, women and men lying in the streets of Baghdad is perceived in the West as an unbelievable violation of human rights and human decency. For the Sunni insurgents, however, they see their attacks in much the same vein as the notorious U.S. Army Col. John Chivington, who urged his men to spare no children during the infamous 1864 Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado with the words–“nits make lice”. They are fighting for what they perceive as their survival and are willing to use any methods they can to achieve that end. The Iraqi Sunnis are not the only Sunni muslims in the world willing to destroy the Shia and prevent them from taking control of a government. The Iraqi Sunnis enjoy widespread support among Sunni in Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

3. The insurgents who claim to be part of Al Qaeda are able to mount coordinated attacks in the face of concerted military pressure by the Iraqi and U.S. forces. If the insurgency in Iraq was genuinely weakened, they should have wilted in the face of the offensive in Tall Afar. Instead of retreating and hiding out, however, they were able to plan multiple, coordinated attacks; manage the logistics of organizing new attacks hundreds of miles away; recruit and train the people to carry out these attacks; and engage in information warfare by issuing statements and videos detailing their “work”. Those are not the signs of a weakened insurgency.

The foolishness of the U.S. military officer who saw weakness in the murder of Shia civilians must be replaced by clear thinking, informed analysis. The Iraqi insurgency is not a monolith. It is comprised of a variety of tribal and religious groups. These various groups agree on two points–the Shia must be prevented from taking power and jeopardizing the status of the Sunni and the “crusaders” must be expelled from Iraq. Unless we are willing to commit enough forces to control the “Jello Bag”, we must embark on a political strategy that will persuade some key Sunni tribes that their interests will be protected. Barring an effective counter insurgency campaign, we must turn to politics in order to split and ultimately weaken the insurgency. Otherwise, the insurgents ability to confront and embarrass us will grow.

by Larry C. Johnson (bio at conclusion)

An article in the New Hampshire Union Leader by Kurt S. Wolz, an American Airlines pilot who was supposed to be on the ill-fated American Airlines 11, which crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, caught my fancy. I share Captain Wolz’s concern that despite the President’s tough talk about “fighting terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here”, we’re no safer today and may be at greater risk as a nation.

I sent the article to a group of friends who tend towards the conservative side of the political aisle and received the following response from one:

Dear Larry

OK, I realize that I am not supposed to go against the grain, but may I be allowed a few observations?

At the outset, I acknowledge the right of those who purchase the tickets to the NFL game that, along with the price of the ticket, the fan buys and therefore owns the right to boo the player. It goes without saying that the fan has the right to express his or her opinion. It is also probably true that most, if not all, fans never played the game, have no idea what it is like to play in the bigs, and is simply one more “observer” who thinks his or her voice means more than the time and space taken up by his volume.

Likewise, in a democracy, the voter and the tax payer own the right to boo. Likewise, the voter/taxpayer has seldom achieved or earned the position of the “player” he loves to boo. He’s never sat in the chair, made the decisions, suffered the consequences or agonies of the decision maker, or comes close to understanding the variables the elected or appointed official must weight. We are long on arm chair quarterbacks, We are long on media who are untested studio readers, we are long on middle level military, government, and academic talking heads and bloggers. They have a role to play. They might even have an idea, but seldom have the forum or the tact to enable their idea to become part of the policy dialogue. It’s easy to carp. It is more difficult to elevate the dialogue. It is far more difficult to impact policy.

Continued BELOW, folowed by MY REBUTTAL:

[Dear Larry note, continued]

In general, there is a tendency to listen to only those who agree with our bias. Unfortunately, there is also a tendency to disrespect those who disagree and assign insulting terminology or motive to the opinion of others. Seldolm do those who scream the loudest find time to mention ONE positive thing about another with whom he or she might disagree.

I wish to opt out of the screaming, the name calling, the lowered dialogue, the disrespect, the headlines, the trivia, the media. I wish to be associated with those who, in the interest of the long term benefit of our nation, will also allow others to express an opposing voice.

Signed

BB

Dear BB:

Spent the tailgate after the Washington Redskins victory with an active duty Navy Reserve Captain fresh returned from Iraq. He is 57 years old, he fought in Vietnam and was recalled to duty after 9-11. He is one of the very few guys with Vietnam experience still on active duty. He returned home two months ago after spending the last two years in Iraq. He is an accomplished Arabic speaker and was being used as a translator for Special Operations missions.

While very complimentary of the caliber of the Spec Ops guys and their professionalism in the field, he is distressed by the Administration’s policy. The strain being put on our military forces is reaching the breaking point. He said we’re failing on the ground in Iraq in part because we don’t have enough boots on the ground. Gee, there’s a novel idea. He’s not putting a political spin on this. Just trying to do his job, serve his country, and stay alive.

Based on your response, what do we do when the President ignores the advice of informed, knowledgeable officers and then in the process puts our country at greater risk? Speaking out and criticizing is an obligation of citizens, not a sign of treason or mere whining. In the case of Bush we’re looking at a guy who has not achieved his position in life through merit as much as through family connections and helping hands from wealthy, connected folks. Bush is not alone in this regard. I concede that folks on the other side of the aisle, Kennedy springs to mind, have come to political power thanks to assists that had nothing to do with intellectual accomplishment or creativity in the field of business.

What should really distress us is the gulf between the political rhetoric, i.e. “We’re fighting a war on terror”, and the reality of staffing critical positions in this “war” with guys you wouldn’t hire to take care of your daughter’s horse. Accordingly, what do we do we a leader allows cronyism and political hackery to levels not seen even in the Clinton Administration?

There are some objective facts to consider:

1. The number of international terrorist attacks are at an unprecedented level. We have 38 years of data. The spike is directly linked to the US invasion of Iraq.

2. Bin Laden has regrouped and remains free to organize follow up attacks.

3. The bungled response to the hurricane and the TV images broadcast around the world have created the image that we are weak and vulnerable. Regardless of the objective truth of our actual strength or weakness the fact that others peceive us as weak will embolden them to test us and challenge our interests around the world.

4. The political damage to Bush from Katrina will force him to devote more attention to domestic affairs at a time when the Administration’s focus is needed in Iraq.

5. The United States cannot spend 80 billion a year in Iraq and 100 billion to rebuild New Orleans during an election year without damaging the economy.

Now opinion, informed opinion, but still one man’s view:

Pressure will build to choose betwee Iraq and New Orleans. Lack of progress on the ground in Iraq and the emergence of greater sectarian strife will make it more difficult for Bush to maintain domestic support for the Iraq mission. Meanwhile, pressure to fix things here at home will escalate. Ultimately, Congressional reluctance to continue to spend money in Iraq will force Bush to choose New Orleans over Iraq. Unfortunately, that will send the world the message that the United States, when forced to suffer (by either nature or man) will retreat from its obligations. I fear that road opens up an enormous Pandora’s box that will lead to countries such as Iran, North Korea, and China to pursue their respective interests more aggressively, much to our detriment I’m afraid.

I’d welcome a more sunny scenario but just don’t see how we get there. And after a tough victory by the Skins today I’m more than optomistic (10 and 6 maybe?). Of course, I’ve been wrong about the Skins before but that’s because I let my heart rather than my head do the thinking.

Best
LJ

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by Larry C. Johnson

Getting a grip on the crisis response operation in Louisiana and Mississippi is analogous to trying to manage three women who are told to share the same kitchen to cook for their respective families.

As someone who lived through the experience of trying to keep peace when women from two different families had to share a kitchen in one house, believe me, it ain’t easy. The key to success is a clear chain of command and precise definitions of who can do what and when they can do it. Those lessons learned on the small scale of managing conflict in the kitchen would serve us well in the massive effort required to recover from Katrina.

Before I get lambasted as a sexist pig or as someone trivializing the horror underway along the Gulf Coast, let me reassure you that I am only trying to put the management challenge of Katrina in terms the average person can understand.

When you throw Federal, State, local, and private authorities together to manage the rescue and recovery operation along the Gulf Coast you are putting people with competing interests, who are each trying to do what they think is best, on a path of conflict unless there are clear and precise chains of command. The failure to clarify who is in charge leads to conflict, duplication of effort, and wasted resources.

Take what happened yesterday, for example. The 82nd Airborne is providing security in one sector of New Orleans. They are recently returned from Iraq and are no nonsense when it comes to security. They were stopping Louisiana State Police, who were in uniform and clearly marked vehicles, and prohibiting them from transiting the sector the Army was guarding. Needless to say this did not create warm fuzzy feelings between the Police and the Army. In fact, senior Police and Military officials had to spend time yesterday sorting out this issue rather than dealing with rescue and recovery.

It is both frightening and ironic that the rescue and recovery operation in New Orleans in particular and Louisiana in general has been so ragged. With the exception of New York City, Louisiana had more experience dealing with multiple jurisdiction crisis incidents, particularly chemical spills and industrial fires, than any other region in the country. The plethora of petroleum and chemical facilities in the area, coupled with railroad, port, and highway transportation hubs, routinely confronted State and local authorities with the duty of cooperating to put out a fire, control the leak from an over turned chlorine tank, or evacuate an area threatened by a toxic cloud.

CONTINUED BELOW:
Admittedly the scale and scope of the destruction the Federal, State, and local authorities now confront is without precedent. At least 50 oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico have disappeared completely. There are over 100 boats sunk in the Mississippi River that are obstructing river traffic. Chemical storage tanks have been breached and there is a growing risk of spontaneous explosions in undamaged pipelines and storage tanks as hindering agents degrade with the passage of time.

Once the process of clean up and restoration is well underway there needs to be a serious “hotwash” aka after action review. Friends of mine on scene are scratching their heads about a variety of issues. For example, one experienced hand called the Operations Center the day after the hurricane and recommended that helicopters capable of dropping water to put out fires be prepositioned. His recommendation was rejected initially. Once the fires broke out, however, the urgent request for helicopters was issued.

Other hotwash issues (in no order of importance):

1. Pet Rescue–Many people still in New Orleans refused to leave their homes because they would not abandon their pets. FEMA prohibited evacuees from bringing out their pets. Once the media is on scene showing images of shivering dogs stranded on car roofs pet lovers around the world demand action. Accordingly, many of the rescue forces are currently going after starving and thirsty animals. Next go round, ensure that there is a system in place to evacuate pets as well. It could be a logistics nightmare but I doubt it could be any worse than having to track down folks hiding in flooded neighborhoods 8 days after the hurricane.

2. The Debacle at the Dome and Convention Center–the failure of Federal, State, and local authorities to provide basic services to those who sought refuge have friends of mine in Louisiana scratching their heads. No one seized the initiative in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane to provide food, water, sanitation, and security. Leaving thousands of Americans to stew in their waste is inexcusable. Two key questions need to be answered: 1) why did the State and Local evacutation plan fail to move these residents to a site where their needs could be met? and 2) why did Federal planners on scene at the Louisiana Crisis Operations Center fail to intervene or call upon expedient resources?

There is a slight silver lining in the black cloud hanging over the Gulf. The people currently involved in the operation are learning things that can’t learn through books or exercises. If we capture the lessons learned then we will be better prepared to deal with future tragedies. If not, we will repeat the past and more Americans will die.

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by Larry C. Johnson

While watching the MSNBC program, CONNECTED, COAST TO COAST with Ron Reagan, a man from the Evergreen Foundation was on air spinning the myth that the President had to “beg” the Governor of Louisiana to take action.

Having been on this show several times I called one of the bookers, Susan Durrwatcher, to alert her to the fact that this man was misrepresenting what happened. I offered Susan the following objective, documented facts (see timeline below).

Susan thanked me for my “opinion” and said “we just have a different perspective.”

Stunned, I asked her by what standard of journalism that an objective fact was mere opinion? I asked her to simply look at the documents and correct the record. She declined. I asked her to remove me from the MSNBC list of contacts. I’m sure MSNBC won’t miss me and I am certain I will have a happy life without having to subject myself to their unprofessional approach to journalism.

The Bush White House is furiously spinning to lay the blame on the Governor and Mayor of Louisiana. My position is that I think both the Governor and the Mayor can be faulted on a variety of fronts. I do not absolve them of their responsibility to properly and fully implement their own emergency response plans.

However, the Governor followed the appropriate protocol and, in accordance with the National Response Plan (NRP), asked the President in accordance with the Stafford Act, to declare a State of Emergency.

BELOW: The Timeline

TIMELINE

Friday, 26 August 2005, Governor of Louisiana declares state of emergency

Saturday morning, 27 August 2005, Governor of Louisiana asks President Bush to declare a state of emergency and requests Federal Assistance “to save lives and property”. Note, the letter was published on 27 August 2005 on Lexis Nexis but was dated 28 August 2005. Bush received the letter on Saturday and responded on the same day by declaring a State of Emergency. Note, per the NRP, William Lokey was designated as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in Louisiana.

Sunday, 28 August 2005, Mayor of New Orleans orders Mandatory Evacuation.

Note: In Governor Blanco’s request on the 27th, there is a specific request for help with evacuation and a specific request for help to “save lives and protect property”.

Monday, 29 August 2005, FEMA Director Brown requests DHS Secretary Chertoff’s help in getting 1000 DHS employees ready to deploy to the disaster within 48 hours.

Under the National Response Plane (see p. 93, Figure 11), once the President declares a State of Emergency the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to implement the Plan. Initially, DHS is supposed to deploy an Emergency Response Team to the State to provide expertise in assessing needs and determining appropriate courses of action. Moreover, on p. 52 of the NRP the President may act proactively under the Stafford Act.

Folks, these are not OPINIONS. These are cold, objective facts. However, MSNBC and other members of the mainstream media (MSM) are confused about what is a fact and what is opinion.

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

by Larry C. Johnson

Don’t let Bush off the hook. The White House effort to blame the Governor of Louisiana ignores some critical facts:

The Governor of Louisiana declared a State of Emergency on 26 August 2005, which is a pre-requisite for invoking the Stafford Act:

Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco today issued Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005, declaring a state of emergency for the state Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana.

The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.

The Governor, per the National Response Plan, followed this request with a letter on Saturday, 27 August 2005, invoking the Stafford Act. Note this letter inludes specific requests for aid:

The President

The White House

Washington, D. C.

Through:

Regional Director

FEMA Region VI

800 North Loop 288

Denton, Texas 76209

Dear Mr. President:

Under the provisions of Section 501 (a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. xx 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR x 206.35, I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The affected areas are all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting the thousands of citizens evacuating from the areas expecting to be flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

NOTE: THERE IS AN INVALUABLE CHART AT THE END.

CONTINUED BELOW:

Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of emergency assistance needed under the Stafford Act, and emergency assistance from certain Federal agencies under other statutory authorities are tabulated in Enclosure A.

Hours earlier, Louisiana and neighboring Mississippi declared their own states of emergency in preparation for the storm, and evacuations of low-lying areas began. (From the Voice of America)

Now, according to the National Response Plan , the onus was on the Department of Homeland Security to kick the disaster relief effort into high gear. The State of Louisiana had provided the Feds with a basic list of needs. Overview_of_federal_response_under_staff_1

The dispute over who controls the Louisiana National Guard is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the basic responsibility and clear failure of Federal Officials to do what they were authorized to do under their own National Response Plan.

This chart alone highlights the failure of Chertoff and Brown. If President Bush is in charge he ought to hold them accountable.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio

–> Browse my list of five favorite books.