This is mind-numbing:
Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission’s report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored.
That, in and of itself, is nothing unusual for Cynthia McKinney. But, the story gets more interesting as you read on:
“The commission’s report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration,” said John Judge, a member of McKinney’s staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission’s report.
The White House and the commission have dismissed such questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.
McKinney first raised questions about Bush’s involvement shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted her in 2002.
“What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families,” McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during the proceedings.
She rebuffed a reporter’s repeated attempts to ask her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims that led to her downfall.
“Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian,” panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. “And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom.”
Who is Melvin Goodman? Why, one of the signatories to this letter regarding the Plame leak. The letter that has been widely trumpeted by Josh Marshall and others.
It appears Mr. Goodman has been very busy lately. At the very least, this, in my eyes at least, diminishes the seriousness and the impact of the letter from former ‘outraged’ CIA agents. The inclusion of this partisan hack as an example of ‘straight-shooting’ former CIA agents makes me think differently about the letter.
Obligatory troll protection- when the Fitzgerald report comes out, if Rove or anyone is found to have done something wrong, I want him/them fired.
KC
That’s funny. Was that the same intelligence guy who offered that whopper of a conspiracy speech at that Conyers hearing?
I have a buddy that just got into the nutball 911 conspiracy theories. He recommended I watch the movie In Plane Site, about how the US government was behind the attacks on the trade center and pentagon. It was so poorly done, I told my friend after watching it, that I’d seen better Roswell incident stuff on SciFi. I just don’t know how anyone could believe all that crap, let alone a member of Congress (I’m not suggesting mistakes weren’t made by the government on 911, however.). It’s a cryin’ fuckin’ shame. I try mostly to ignore them, but sometimes I really cannot stand the fringe Left.
p.lukasiak
when people know that the truth has been ignored/covered up, conspiracy theories will bloom.
McKinney is right — it was a “rush to exoneration”. That doesn’t mean that Bush was involved in 9-11; but the fact remains that Bush was completely inattentive to the looming threat of a terrorist attack, and was not really held accountable for that failure.
M. Scott Eiland
Huh. . .Mr. Goodman is directly connected to the Crown Princess of the anti-Semitic American left? Wow–the MSM might actually work up a sweat burying this story.
Oh, did Ms. McKinney bring a gavel and insist that all of the little moonbat witnesses call her “Mr. Chairman?” It was so cute when Conyers did that at his phony hearing.
Once again–a big “thank you” to the Georgia district who sent this little psycho back to Congress.
gus
I doubt bush was involved. I don’t doubt that he or whoever was in charge knew it was coming and allowed it.
Steve
When Jerry Nadler’s office politely said this hearing isn’t the kind of thing he would be interested in, I figured it was pretty safe to write the whole thing off.
At Friday’s Plame hearing, Larry Johnson, the registered Republican and former CIA operative, freely admitted that the members of his group come from all over the ideological spectrum. And yeah, a couple of them seem pretty moonbatty, but I wouldn’t cavalierly write them all off.
Doug
The Bushies didn’t conspire or deliberately allow 9/11 to happen. They were just incompetent and indifferent to terrorism at the time. His administration has a handful of goals at any given time and all energy is devoted to those goals. Pre-9/11, I believe the goals were mainly tax cuts and missile defense.
So, I don’t think there was anything conspiratorial going on with regard to pre-9/11 security, but I don’t think they deserve any national security credit either.
elf
You really may want to watch this hearing. If nothing else, whether or not you agree w/the whole Plame thing it is interesting to hear these retired CIA agents discuss the ramifications of something like this.
Especially telling, how Russia’s spies worked to protect their own. Why? Because they knew if they didn’t, they would have no luck in getting anyone else to work for them as an operative.
Seems to me it matters not whether she was a desk jockey or not… our ability to gather any good intel since her name became public has probably been seriously compromised.
And I’m not sure but I don’t believe you have addressed this issue, if you have, my apologies.
But please, as a moderate, it is important because there are many who read you. From what I have read of your writing in the past, it seems that you try to address an issue somewhat objectively.
Ok, maybe not all the time, but there are those of us in this country hoping to find others more willing to discuss the issues/problems without it becoming a screaming match of my dog’s better than yours.
And my god, since when has it become ok, for our own government to do something like this?
Thomas
I have a feeling Goodman’s quote has been taken way out of context. Google his name and you’ll come across this 2002 Washingtonpost chat.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/politics_goodman051702.htm
He makes it pretty clear that thinks 9/11 was a terrible intelligence failure, not a Bush conspiracy or something.
Steve
Two different hearings going on here, elf!
Bernard Yomtov
when the Fitzgerald report comes out, if Rove or anyone is found to have done something wrong, I want him/them fired.
Could you be more specific? Do you mean only if Rove is convicted of a crime?
Suppose he leaked the information to Novak, but had gotten it in a way that makes this non-criminal. What then?
John Cole
My personal position is he or whoever should go for that, as well.
jg
Conyers was once chairman of a committe. Once you are, people call you chairman from then on. He never told anyone to say it. Stop getting your news from Rush. He says things he knows aren’t completely true because you guys love to hear it.
Tim F
This Republican attitude that one embarrassing member discredits an entier group simply has to end. If you want to make that case with any intellectual honesty, then linking approvingly to Manuel Miranda permanently discredits this blog. Jack Abramoff discredits every GOPer with whom he’s done business, which is to say most of them.
So, apply the principle across the board and basically deny every group on Earth the right to have an opinion, or leave it be and spare us the cherry-picking.
CaseyL
At the very least, Bush failed to give the warnings enough attention.
His Admin deep-sixed Gore’s blue ribbon commission report on international terrorism. He didn’t insist on a special task force to deal with the Summer of Threat, the way Clinton and Clarke did with the Millenium Plot. Bush didn’t even interrupt his vacation to deal personally with the Aug 6 memo.
(And, for the love of god, don’t tell me that wasn’t “worth” interrupting his vacation for. It was a hell of a lot more important than signing the Terri Schiavo Bill, for which he DID interrupt his vacation.)
In view of what we now know about Bush and his foreign policy apparatus, I think it’s way past time we stop cutting them slack about their failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
These are the same people who lied us into a war that has caused more death and damage than five 9/11s; a war that has made global terrorism much worse than it was.
These are the same people who refuse to be truthful or accountable for Iraq, for the tortures at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and in Afghanistan, for the suspension of habeus corpus and Constitutional law regarding detainees, for the outing of a CIA operative, and for the ruination of at least two intelligence operations that were tracking AQ networks.
This is an Administration that has never been straight with anyone, that hides and lies and stonewalls, that ignores Congress and the Courts; and that, bottom line, doesn’t seem to care about anything except preserving its own power.
I’m not saying Bush was “behind” 9/11. But he was at least criminally malfeasant. Maybe McKinney’s actually giving Bush an unintended compliment, by assuming that he was being Machiavellian, rather than totally boneheaded and incompetent.
But it’s time people stopped automatically dismissing McKinney as a crank. And definitely time to stop automatically dismissing as cranks anyone who wonders what the hell was going on in the Bush Admin during the Summer of Threat.
Rick
Figures this posting would bring out the “Speak Truth to Power” hallucinators. Good post, John.
Cordially…
rilkefan
Rick: “hallucinators” “Cordially”
Liar.
Don Surber
Nice diamond in the coal dust, John. This was enlightening.
Dems had an ex-CIA deliver their answer to Bush’s radio address today. Smart move
The stereotype is that all CIA and military types are 1950s Republican conservatives. A closer examination shows that they run the gamut, although the Bell Curve skews right.
Dorian
“…but the fact remains that Bush was completely inattentive to the looming threat of a terrorist attack, and was not really held accountable for that failure…”
This, of course, is like saying that crime only occurs because the President is inattentive to crime. Unless you want the President to micro-manage the country, and expect him to be omniscient you can’t hold him accountable for everything. The CIA and FBI are not part of his entourage. They were there before he became president and they’ll be there when he leaves.
The first World trade center bombing occurred in 1993 whose fault was that? I’m tired of all the finger pointing when it comes to events beyond anyone’s control. If the FBI had apprehended the terrorists before 9/11 there would have been accusations of human rights violations because of some half-baked theory about Middle-Eastern men high-jacking planes with box cutters.
I remember, before 9/11, being allowed to board a plane with my Swiss army knife which sported a blade much longer than a box cutter. President Clinton must have been inattentive that day or I never would have allowed to board.
Which government official is responsible for Columbine? How about The Okalahoma City bombing?
Mason
Bullshit. Cynthia “J-E-W-S” McKinney is the very definition of a crank. People who defend and excuse McKinney are cranks and are instantly screened through my “loony” filter. Thanks for tipping your hand!
ppGaz
We had a two-year flame war in Usenet over the subject of whether the Bush Administration actually planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks themselves. The conspirowcko theory revolves around things like “proof” that a Boeing 757 could not have caused the Pentagon damage, “proof” that the twin towers could not have fallen unless their collapse was aided by planted explosives and/or deliberately weakened structural fire protection, “proof” that the large tower just north of the twin towers was deliberately imploded later in the day on 9-11 so as to conceal evidence, “proof” that marginally-trained Arabs could not have flown the attack aircraft with the necessary skill and precision ….
…on and on ad infinitum. All, complete horseshit. All thoroughly and exhaustively debunked.
jg
Wow. You celebrate being dismissive. I think Rush is a crank but I don’t automatically dismiss every word he says. I still agree with him about Donovan McNabb. Being dismissive is why the right doesn’t really know what the left wants. They just assume they know and get their assumptions confirmed by other dismissive righties. Polarization in action.
kl
“when people know that the truth has been ignored/covered up, conspiracy theories will bloom.”
Speaking of which, how’s Bill Burkett doing these days?
“Being dismissive is why the right doesn’t really know what the left wants.”
Why should they care? It’s not like the left is going to offer any competition anytime soon.
Rick
rilkefan,
Neener-neener, you poopy-head.
Cordially…
RiverRat
Can any of the leftists/Democrats here enunciate a clear vision for winning the war against totalitarian Islamo-fascism or do you solely exist to vacuously whine?
Oh, Sorry! It’s all about American Imperialism. Good! Is there any leftist here who wants a ticket to Bhagdad? I’ll buy if you stay long enough to become roadkill of your fellow travelers.
Bob
When that Jewish guy who was selling radio antennas door-to-door in Iraq was captured by rebels and got his head lopped off soon after the mission had been “accomplished,” and then it was discovered that one of the 9/11 hijackers had this fellow’s computer password back at college, I got a flash that maybe someone in the intelligence services was not fully on board with the Bush program. This sounded like a leak.
Look, Bush and his pals are probably the worst collection of scumbags who ever ran this country, and they are running it into the ground like the traitors they are, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the motivation for the CIA and probably elements of other intelligence agencies and their allies in the business world who are now preparing to sink the failed regime. Just because Bush wants to rearrange the power to the military, which is pretty much wedded to Big Oil (check out our more recent military adventures) doesn’t mean that the CIA wants to surrender its power. And there are people in the oligarchy who realize no matter how many tax cuts they get, the current direction of this administration will rile the proles enough to seek another FDR, or worse. Better path, moderation.
The right-wingers who still contend that there was a silent coup to sink Nixon were probably right (track down and read D. Davis’ KATHARINE THE GREAT wherein Bob Woodward’s ONI history is discussed, as well as Ben Bradlee’s post-WWII work with the CIA in Europe), and I think we’re having another one. Is it democratic? Hell, no, but if they’re aligning with Democrats they’re unlikely to get too oppressive.
***
As far as Bush being in on 9/11, hey, his grandpa helped fund the Nazis during the fucking Second World War. His dad, while VP, funded the same guys who ended up becoming al-Qaida (as well as funding Saddam, for that matter). From what I can see, the Bush Family has been a treasonous criminal cabal for the last hundred years. Some of the Neoliths around here deserve to be screwed over by these bastards, but not the rest of us, or the rest of the world.
***
I think global warming has arrived.
Geek, Esq.
I myself strongly suspect that political considerations have prevented a real hard look at the failures that allowed 911 to happen. So, some hard questions and a hard look should be taken by someone.
But not by that idiot McKinney.
Steve
Oh, it’s so hard to come up with ideas for how to fight the terrorists! Fortunately for the vacuous minds of the Left, the notion that “maybe we should start by going after Osama bin Laden” has not been taken yet.
SamAm
One of the great unremarked upon tragedies of Florida 2000 was how the nation never got to see Dan Burton flying bomb laden model planes into replicas of the WTC on a soccer field somewhere in the DC area. That would have been fun. I mean funny.
Asprin-factory gate, anyone? The Cox Report? Let’s not pretend like the GOP didn’t promote all manner of paranoid bullshit on this level (or below) against Clinton in the 90s. Over much less than 9-11.
McKinney’s an embarassment and quite an idiot and I’d never vote for her, never even consider it. Denise Majette should have stayed in Congress. I’ll see you McKinney and raise you Tancredo. Presidential candidate Tancredo. And I’ll see your Mr. Goodman and raise you every stovepiper who ever got a direct line to OVP or OSP. Give me a Goodman over a Chalabi any day. Or better yet, give me neither.
But damn it people, this has less to do with Rovegate than almost every cloud of dust kicked up by the right in the past three weeks, and those were reaches. But I guess the scandal’s only interesting where there are the most effervescent reasons to make it about anything other than itself. Whatever.
DougJ
All of these CIA agents who have been whining about “Plume-gate” at those little Democratic show trials are a bunch of traitors. I hope the agency fires all of them. Have they fired Ms. Plume yet?
Sojourner
Doug is becoming a parody of himself. The folks who outed a CIA operative aren’t the traitors, it’s the people who are upset about it.
Doug has his head so far up his ass, the world appears upside down to him.
ppGaz
Doug is the Jonathan Winters of Balloon Juice.
kl
“But damn it people, this has less to do with Rovegate than almost every cloud of dust kicked up by the right in the past three weeks, and those were reaches.”
Yes, of course, Rove. Everything else that happens in the world is just a distraction from Rove. What else did it say in the MoveOn action alert?
Quit trying to throw everybody off Rove’s trail, Cole! Next you’ll be blogging about cats, or super-hot actresses…
Peter
Outing a CIA agent not wrong, I guess? Or, maybe it’s all just media propaganda produced by the Chinese? Perfect.
Someone had you listed as a ‘semi-reasonable conservative’ or something like that, but then I saw ‘balloon juice’ and thought ‘WTF?’
John Cole
Umm. Outing a CIA agent is wrong. Period. I guess I will have to put up two obligatory troll warnings. What has bothered me lately is the endless pile-on and worst-case speculation about everyone in this administration by the Democrats, when they have just as few facts as the rest of us.
And when the letter that Marshall trumpets as some sort of evidence of CIA agents mortified by Plame’s outing turns out to be signed by a bunch of Larouchite losers, allow me to engage in a little gleeful teasing.
And btw, what is wrong with the name?
Clever
In case you missed it, here’s the meeting w/Larry Johnson & friends…the other signatories to the letter you speak of. Take a listen to them before you dismiss them all as cranks.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter072205_identity.rm?mode=compact
[might need to paste into RealPlayer if you dont have rstp registered in your browser.]
I’d advise the others who are enjoying the blanket statement defense to do so as well. After that, tell us what you think. Might not change your mind on “the truth”, but it will probably change your mind on the charachter of the other individuals involved.
Bruce Moomaw
“Thomas” is right in saying that Goodman’s tone in that 2002 Washington Post webchat was absolutely different:
“[Questioner], Washington, D.C.: ‘Do you think this episode will cause us to go back and re-evaluate these earlier stories? It is pretty clear to me that Bush Sr. and pals have already, and will continue, to make a good deal of money off of their military investments, and given the recent news, the conflicts of interest are too glaring to ignore. If they knew in advance AND made money off the whole thing (plus got a surge in popularity, and was able to suspend the normal rule of law), they should be thrown in jail or tried as traitors.
” ‘I think their inaction, and strange actions, last fall speaks volumes. Couldn’t it be argued that they let it happen because it would help them greatly in all respects?’
“Dr. Melvin Goodman: ‘No, I don’t believe there was any conspiracy involved. The same thing was said with President Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, and I think that was a very tragic example of conspiracy theory. But I do believe that the government’s immediate response to increase funds to the intelligence community was wrong. There is no reason to believe that more money in the hands of the military would lead them to handle the problems of terrorism more effectively. Money is not the answer; they need better people and better organization. You could argue that the best way to reform the CIA would be to cut its budget, you will force them to make the choices to what they need to be doing. It’s the case of too many cooks spoiling the broth — too many people are working on the same problems but they are not communicating each other. Communication within these agencies such as the CIA and FBI is not good and cannot be fixed with more money — it would need to be fixed with reorganization and leadership.”
So, what the hell is going on here? Are there two Melvin Goodmans running around? (The one in the Post chat is a professor of international studies at the National War College.) And, if so, which one cosigned Larry Johnson’s letter? Damned if I know yet.
Clever
John, what is
John Cole
Balloon Juice is just slang for hot air.
Clever
Crap…had a great skewer, but lost it in post…already knew what it was John [saw it in an archived post], was going to drop Peter some hints. Would like to know what is [there’s where it screwed up last time on the em tag] the flap over your blog title…whats the tally of people having problems with it?
Peter, what’s your answer? Why the problem?
Steve
“A bunch of Larouchite losers”? What a ridiculous overgeneralization.
What about Larry Johnson, the registered Republican who actually signed the letter? Got anything on him?
We sit here more than two years later and the storm of invective and smear against Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie, continues. I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of “is” was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington. So where are we? The President has flip flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.
What about James Marcinkowski, former head of the Michigan Young Republicans? What about Col. W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East and terrorism intelligence at the Department of Defense? Do they have any credibility? Or are we entitled to simply slough them off, because one or two of their cosigners have moonbat credentials?
The standards for who is allowed to attack the Bush Administration have gotten even more ridiculously high of late. If you’ve ever been within 100 miles of a Democrat, you’re a partisan hack who is unqualified to comment.
John, when you have to bend over this far backwards to give both sides the benefit of the doubt, you do a disservice to the cause of objectivity.
SamAm
Well, my main objection to these types of arguments is not that there’s never underlying truth to them, because in fact most people are flawed and wrong on a great deal. It’s that everyone who disagrees with the administration gets the same exact treatment. Name me a vocal, prominent critic of the Bush administration that hasn’t been called what Mel Goodman almost certainly is (a dangerously wrong conspiracy monger and a liar) and I’ll…stand corrected. Do you think Rand Beers or Roger Cressey wouldn’t be torn to shreds if they were more prominent? The administration and its friends cannot be trusted to a fair debate on its critics, irrespective of the merit of the critics involved. It’s a categorical thing.
And it’s also, in this instance WRT the Plame affair, both a very large deal (the attacks on Wilson) and an unfortunate (yeah, I’m not happy with the composition of the letter either, esp Goodman and McGovern) footnote that doesn’t change one thing about the legal case.
But more than anything, it seems an angry reaction to a bunch of partisan-in-this-instance-and-perhaps-others ex-CIA coming out and defending Plame/calling out Rove and the WH. Why, who do they think they are? Norm Coleman? Ken Mehlman?
DougJ
“Outing a CIA agent is wrong.”
What about when it’s done to silence her anti-American crusader husband? Then I think it’s right.
The Democratic pile-on is certainly unseemly. Look at the way they defended Clinton who did something MUCH worse than anything anyone is being accused of here. What hypocrites.
John Cole
Steve- Then why not send a letter with just those three on it, and not all the ones who have strange histories and associations?
The answer is because this is just another political game for Josh Marshall and those like him.
And DougJ- this is just idiotic:
Her husband, is anything, is anti-administration. But he is not anti-American- there is a difference. And it is never acceptable to burn agents, if that is what has happened.
Sojourner
Doug’s bizarre logic comes from one simple fact. He is a Bush patriot, not an American patriot. Damaging America in order to protect Bush is not only not immoral but worthy of reward.
So tell us, Doug. Why is your loyalty to Bush stronger than your loyalty to your country?
DougJ
“And it is never acceptable to burn agents, if that is what has happened.”
It’s pretty clear that’s what happened, John. I admit that and say (1) it isn’t a big deal and (2) Wilson deserves it. You can call me ideological and partisan all you like, but I’m honest about actual events.
That’s what annoys me about RINOS like you: you’re essentially liberals but you won’t admit it. That kind of slef-denial leads to some of the strangest contortions. You jump all over actual conservatives like me for being strident, and maybe we are, but the truth is we’re also far more “reality-based” (to use the liberals to famous catch words) than political closet cases like you.
Sojourner: I’m in a mood to be kind to you liberals today because at least you guys are honest with yourselves — unlike the RINOS — so I’ll pose the question back, nicely: why is your loyalty to the Democratic party stronger than your loyalty to the country? You’re no better or less partisan than me. We’re both partisans and if we both admit it, it’s to our credit. It makes us better than the RINOs of the Republican party and the Joe Liebermans of the Democratic party.
DougJ
Weasely RINO alert:
John McCain on Stephie’s show today:
McCain: “Again I don’t know what the definition of “negligent” is.”
McCain, Lincoln Chafee, George Pataki and you John Cole should join forces with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and the editorial staff of the New Republic and form a party called the Weasel Party. You can hem and haw and waffle and switch positions and argue about the definitions of word.
Sojourner and ppGaz: at least you guys say what you mean. You may shamelessly cave into terrorists and espouse socialist ideas, but at least you’re honest about it.
Sojourner
We believe in following the law. You believe in kissing Bush’s ass. That’s the difference and it would be nice if you were honest about it. It is against the law to out CIA agents and there’s no caveat that it’s okay if you hate their spouse. You’re a moral relativist who believes the end justifies the means if it involves propping up your beloved Bush administration. You need to be honest about that because it’s not a question of where you are on the political spectrum. It’s an issue of tolerating law-breaking because it’s being done by your guy. That’s not liberal, that’s not conservative. That’s just stupid.
DougJ
Sojourner, I don’t agree with anything you just said, but I like your style. No weaseling, no pretend moderation, just straight at me.
Look, though, you guys are just as partisan as I am. You defend everything your guys’ do, whether it’s Clinton or Michael Moore, or Dick Durbin, or the Daleys of Chicago.
Sojourner
Which of these guys started a war based on lies? Which of these guys outed a CIA operative? Which of these guys defend torture?
The biggest crime you can accuse these guys of is lying about a blow job (no one died) and challenging the Bush administration.
Not even a close comparison.
Steve
John, if you’re a former CIA operative who is against the outing of CIA operatives, and another former CIA operative shares your views and wants to belong to your organization and sign your letter, I don’t think you’re required to turn him away because he’s a Democrat or because you psychically know he’ll show up at Cynthia McKinney’s hearing someday.
Larry Johnson freely acknowledged at Waxman’s hearing that his group included members from all over the political spectrum, so it’s not a secret. The point is, if Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush make a commercial together, you can safely assume their cause is nonpartisan, even though you wouldn’t call either of them nonpartisan as an individual. When solid Republicans and wacky liberals are all united in making the same point about our intelligence service, that gives it more credibility, not less.
HH
“What about Larry Johnson, the registered Republican who actually signed the letter?”
You mean the one who dismissed the threat of terrorism prior to Sep. 11 and claimed Plame was in the CIA for 30 years (putting her there at age 10)?
Steve
Yes, HH. I mean the guy who failed to predict 9/11, and thought nuclear proliferation was a greater threat to the US than terrorism (and he was right, by the way). Do you have any basis to say he and the other former CIA employees are wrong in what they say about how covert operatives work, or are you just slinging random mud?
Bernard Yomtov
Steve- Then why not send a letter with just those three on it, and not all the ones who have strange histories and associations?
Because you can’t check the life histories of everyone to make sure they’ve never done or said anything goofy. . The point was to get ex-CIA people to sign and Goodman qualified. Whatever his agreements with Cynthia McKinney, they don’t make the letter wrong. By your logic, no one who doesn’t like Bush can make a valid commnet on this matter.
Besides, if you really want to disregard people because they once associated with a nutbag, you’re going to have to have to quit paying attention to about 90% of Republican Party officials.
HH
Johnson is a partisan propagandist/phony “Republican” through and through… even Somerby recognizes this. His word means diddly and anyone claiming that terrorism’s threat was overstated at any time before or after Sep 11, has no place in serious public discourse other than as an object of ridicule.
HH
And again, as Noah, no Bush fan he, points out, “Johnson’s analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong.” And yet the last Democrat for president ran on such a claim.