by SusanUnPC, Author, No Quarter blog
Originally published at No Quarter
When one reads a hatchet piece like Byron York's June 5 "Mr. Counterterrorism Guru" in the digital National Review about Larry Johnson, we must first ask: 1) the writer's motives behind the attack, 2) the timing of the attack and 3) the timeliness of the piece, which mostly accuses Larry Johnson of popping up everywhere to speak out to "anti-Bush" types, particularly about the outing of former CIA operative Valerie Plame and her front company, Brewster Jennings.
Why did York, who also writes for The Hill, single out Johnson for attack? Why is he attacking Johnson right now? And, to make the piece timely, what has York recently noticed Johnson do, say or write that compelled him to write this Page Six-ish tripe?
: : : Continued below : : :
As for York's motive, I'm going, in part, with my gut: With Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation progressing towards a possible indictment of Karl Rove, it seems to me that Karl Rove's legal spokesperson, Mark Corallo, and other White House "black ops press handlers" are instructing their minions, like GOP lapdog Byron York, to attack the preeminent experts and journalists (some more vulnerable than others) on the Plamegate story.
It's a simple "head 'em off at the pass" strategy. It's also vicious and oh so Rovian.
Given the many reports lately on Rove's involvement in Plamegate and possible indictment, this partly explains the timing, doesn't it. As for the timeliness of York's piece, well, there really isn't any. York doesn't cite a single item that Larry recently said or wrote. Hell, Larry hasn't been on a TV show since his appearance on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann clear back on April 26, 2006. Instead, curiously, York spends the first paragraphs resurrecting and ridiculing a July 2001 op-ed by Larry. You'll learn more about that important piece, which Larry links at his business site, above in "The Serious Stuff," which is PART TWO of this York deconstruction. (In this Daily Kos version, I've pasted PART TWO directly below PART ONE.)
Note that Byron York's piece just prior to "let's-all-pile-on-Larry" was another bash-'em on Plamegate, "The Internet Search for the Rove 'Indictment'." But -- and this is curious -- in that May 24 story, York only went after two rather insignificant net-only writers for their reporting on an imminent indictment of Karl Rove. Truthout's Jason Leopold and Wayne Madsen are two reporters that few people (except 'net news junkies) have ever heard of, and who most in the left blogosphere do not read or take seriously, particularly Wayne Madsen. The blogosphere's verdict on Truthout's journalistic quality is more split. But York apparently is always looking for anyone, important or not, to ambush and tie in to the entire left blogosphere, whether it's true or not. (Although, thanks to the swarm-y rightwing, the Truthout reporter, Jason Leopold, has suddenly acquired an ignominious fame, having been batted about churlishly this past week in print columns and on cable TV shows, even by Connie Chung on her chatty "Connie and Maury" weekend MSNBC show.)
Why didn't York -- like his National Review cohort, Stephen Spruiell -- also go after MSNBC reporter David Shuster for his bold prediction that Rove would be indicted? Here's what Shuster reported May 8, 2006 on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: ... Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon? Would it be an indictment?
SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. ... Read all.
Did he go after obscure 'net journalists and purposely avoid picking on NBC's Shuster because Byron York doesn't want to jeopardize his gig as a frequent conservative pundit on NBC shows such as MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and NBC's Meet the Press?
This possibility is especially amusing since, in his "chew-the-wallpaper" attack of Johnson, York accuses Johnson of being something of a media whore, willing to appear anywhere to talk about Plamegate and to bash Bush. Yet it is York who far out-scores Johnson in media appearances, particularly on TV networks and, of course, in magazine articles. Here's a sampling comparison, by rough count (using news sites' quirky search engines):
Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 2004-2006:
Byron York -- 11
Larry Johnson -- 0
Meet the Press, NBC, 2004-2006 (a once-weekly show!):
Byron York -- 8
Larry Johnson -- 0
Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, 2004-2006
Byron York -- 0
Larry Johnson -- 3 (view)
(The dates for Larry's Countdown appearances? April 25, 2006; August 27, 2004; and December 17, 2004. Well, it's sure, as we already knew, that Keith Olbermann has better taste in his guests. But note that Larry has only been on the show twice in 2004, not once in 2005, and only once in 2006. He's hardly the media hog that Byron York tries to picture.)
FOX NEWS programs, including "Special Report with Brit Hume," "Hannity & Colmes," Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone," "The Big Story with John Gibson," etc.
Byron York -- 47, 10/2001-2006 (view)
Larry Johnson -- 0
National Public Radio, 1996-2006:
Byron York -- 7 (from 2002 through 2003 only, although his bio lists him as an occasional NPR commentator)
Larry Johnson -- 47 (from 1996 through 2006, which also means that Larry's been an NPR expert for at least 10 years)
Then there's the Howie Kurtz factor in the timing of York's hatchet piece. As Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith notes, on the night of May 21, Byron York got a sneak peek at Howard Kurtz's Washington Post May 22nd column which bashed the left blogosphere in toto for jumping on the news of a Rove indictment. Checking the WaPo's own time stamp, Ms. Smith determined that York got his peek 12 hours before Kurtz's own employer published his column. Ms. Smith writes, "[A] hatchet job this obvious -- trying to paint the whole of the liberal blogosphere with a jaundiced brush, especially when the painting is a joint venture between Byron York, Mark Corallo, and Howard Kurtz, is pitiful at best." Mark Corallo is Karl Rove's legal spokesperson. Isn't it fascinating how incestuous it all gets in the defense of the White House from all attacks? And Ms. Smith cites TalkLeft blog's principal author Jeralyn Merritt's discovery that "it was Rove legal spokesperson Mark Corallo who fed Howard Kurtz the phone number of Truthout's [editor] Mark Ash." As Ms. Smith says, Howie's and Byron's pieces represent "intellectual dishonesty."
So it goes something like this: Rove's guy Mark calls Howie who calls Byron who gets the scoop on Howie's column the night before the WaPo publishes Howie's piece. Isn't that something. Well (tongue in cheek), I have to say that like my conspiracies just like I like my drinks: "neat." Besides York's ignoring MSNBC's David Shuster, Ms. Smith also points out that Kurtz fails to mention the "gold standard" reporter on Plamegate: Murray Waas, whose stories have been unimpeachable. Then, as Ms. Smith notes, the DaouReport nails Kurtz's exaggerations in his May 22 hatchet piece on left blogs -- the one that Byron York promoted 12 hours before its publication. (Kurtz's cozy association with conservative writers can't be a surprise; as Larry Johnson pointed out the other day, Kurtz's wife, Sheri Annis, is a Republican consultant. Maybe Howie and Sheri have Byron on speed dial?)
Kurtz charged that "[w]hile no other news organization touched the report, word spread through blogs and Internet sites." But, Daou retorts, "Major progressive bloggers have stayed away from the story." Yet, Daou says, "WSJ obliged by using the Leopold flap to attack progressive blogs." So did Byron York.
And that's how these arsons are set. In the case of Larry Johnson, something (or someone?) tells Byron York to attack Larry. York sits back and waits for his brush fire to spread. Then, when Karl Rove is indicted, TV and radio news producers who are looking for guest experts on Plamegate will perhaps have read York's takedown of Larry and shy away from calling on Larry. Again, it's all so "neat."
More About Motives: "Buy-One" York has to crank out weekly columns for the New Republic and The Hill. To survive, Buy-One York has to attract readers and sell his employers' magazines, as well as his own 2005 book.
These days, with conservatives wishing to avoid writing up the disastrous, no-good-news Bush presidency, what better alternate and attention-getting topic than flippant character assassination. Ripping Larry Johnson is less painful than taking hard soulful looks at one's own party and presidency (as opposed to David Brooks' occasional revelatory observations and admissions Friday nights on PBS's Newshour). And Mr. York has an April 2005 book to keep selling. The book, with its longwinded title, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President--and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time (whew!), features similar hatchet jobs on Bush critics, the usual suspects like "supporters from MoveOn.com, filmmaker Michael Moore, comedian Al Franken, and billionaire George Soros." And, now Byron York has tossed in Larry Johnson, who hardly fits, but what the heck. Maybe York should work in a school cafeteria; he'd be a whiz at making "mystery meat," tossing in whatever's handy.
What better way to divert attention from the nation's real, GOP-caused problems (Iraq, Katrina, cruel detainee treatment, domestic spying on innocent Americans, the cannibalization of the nation's intelligence and security agencies, the dangerous rise of a unitary presidency along with a Constitutional crisis, and on and on) than to write more in the attack-dog style of York's book?
..........
P.S. In case we have to go through any more baloney about Valerie Plame not being undercover, or her work not being of VALUE to the Bush administration, take a look at this from page 132 of Cobra II, the hottest book on the Iraq war by Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor (Ret.), which I've retyped for you:
"At the U.N., Powell would need to make the strongest case possible. The nuclear argument, the White House said, was not yet sufficiently persuasive and the account of Irag's biological and chemical program would need to be more vivid. The CIA sent more information in, drawing on the work of its Bureau of Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control, a unit that included a then unknown undercover CIA operative named Valerie Plame. ..."
FOLLOW ALONG TO PART II.
: : : : : PART II : : : : :
By SusanUnPC, Author, No Quarter (link to Part 1 at No Quarter)
In his June 5 digital National Review piece, Byron York ridiculed Larry Johnson's July 2001 op-ed for the New York Times -- which Johnson has published at his own consulting business site, Berg Associates LLC (so its content can't worry Larry too much!) -- playing up Johnson's statements about infrequent foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, saying that Sept. 11 attacks two months later made a joke of Johnson's column.
But York completely ignored the following key section of Johnson's op-ed. After all, this paragraph would have deflected the drive-by shot that York took at Johnson:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals assoicated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain. (Larry Johnson, July 2001 op-ed, New York Times, reprinted at his business site)
If we wanted to get even, we could ridicule Byron York's June 26, 2003 column which began:
Accusing the Bush administration of lying (or exaggerating) about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq can be a risky business. The next day's news might bring word of a significant WMD discovery, undermining significant parts of the case against the administration.
How exciting! But, remember the short-lived story about an Iraqi scientist's claim that he had a uranium enrichment system planted in his garden?
Then there's York's misrepresentation of polling data on support for Bush's Social Security plan. But enough of York's own foibles.
Johnson has already defended himself from the distortion of his July 2001 op-ed by pundits such as York:
"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." (LawnOrder blog, reprinted at Wikipedia)
York's main man George -- and Condi, Dick, and Donald -- all ignored the warnings of the August 2001 PDB, but York chooses to go after Johnson, who would have recognized -- instantly -- the gravity of that PDB, but to which he unfortunately did not have access.
I asked Larry Johnson about what I know to be his paramount concern: the threat of nuclear weapons to all of mankind. He replied to me:
THERE IS NO TERRORIST GROUP OR ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD THAT POSES A THREAT TO US COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE FACED FROM THE SOVIETS DURING THE COLD WAR. THE SOVIETS FUNDED TERRORISM BUT ALSO HAD NUCLEAR MISSILES, SHIPS, SUBMARINES, AND BOMBERS (NOT TO MENTION THE MILLIONS IN THE ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE).
TO EQUATE BIN LADEN WITH THE SOVIET THREAT IS STUPIDITY.
In a 2004 speech at the National Defence University, President Bush agreed with Larry Johnson:
Speaking at the National Defence University in Washington on Wednesday [Feb. 11, 2004], President Bush has reminded the world that nuclear weapons pose the "greatest threat before humanity today".
In 2002, the Vatican agreed with Larry too. From the Vatican's statement of April 8, 2002, to the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons:
My Delegation is confident that the Preparatory Committee will seize this opportunity to develop a sharpened sense of urgency to root out nuclear weapons that are the biggest threat to mankind. To keep developing weapon systems that can jeopardize the natural structure upon which all civilization rests seriously undermines the genuine quest of the family of nations to build a culture of peace for the present and future generations.
Then there's this key article, "Contemplating the Ifs..." (PDF). This is Larry Johnson and Patrick Lang's Spring 2006 article for The National Interest, headed by James Schlesinger with honorary chair Henry Kissinger. This article is on the grave threat posed by Iran as well as a frighteningly realistic assessment of the risks of pursuing any military action against Iran. It details all the major considerations for assessing and planning responses to the Iranian threat. It also -- once again -- emphasizes Johnson's focus on nuclear weapons as the single greatest threat to mankind. In Iran's case, as Johnson and Lang point out, its frequent sponsorship of terrorist attacks around the world add to necessary worries about the kind of threat Iran could pose if it obtained nuclear weapons.
In contrast to the claims made in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration will prove to be fully justified by the facts in the case of Iran. Iran continues to provide direct operational support both to Al-Qaeda and a congeries of other Islamic terrorist groups. Moreover, the regime has carried out mass-casualty terrorist attacks against the United States. Iran played a direct role in the 1996 attack on the U.S. military base in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, and, regardless of how accurate the NIE is, Iran is seriously pursuing the development of the only real weapon of mass destruction: a nuclear bomb. ... There is a very real and gathering threat from Iran--but the United States needs a viable policy, not sloganeering or wishful thinking, for dealing with Tehran.
The next several pages of the article -- all worth reading with great care -- lay out all the problems with confronting Iran, and the devastating blowback from any military action against Iran. The last section, "Nuclear Armed and Dangerous," begins:
With nuclear weapons in hand, Iran will become the dominant local power in the Persian Gulf. They will have no pressing need to use these weapons, because their mere possession will ensure that everyone in the region, including Israel, will have to deal with them as a major power. We, too, would probably have to learn to deal with them on this basis. [...]
An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would bolster both the supply source and morale of jihadi forces. The possession of such power by Iran would greatly undercut the goals of modernism and democracy, which the United States has promoted in the Islamic world. The probability of a major war in the region would be greatly increased. ...
Add to the grave problem of Iran the disintegrating situation in Afghanistan (thanks to Bush's lack of concentration and short-sheeting needed troops and money for the terribly poor country) -- with the rising up again of the Taliban, thousands of Afghanis rioting in the streets against America, and the emergence of Afghanistan as a major "narco-state" (James Risen, State of War, Free Press, 2006).
Besides allowing Afghanistan to go to seed, George Bush has squandered our power to stand up to Iran because the Iranians know we are bogged down and over-stretched by the increasing violence in Iraq, wholly due to the Bush administration's utterly stupid decision to focus on Iraq, instead of beginning, immediately upon his election in 2000, diplomatic and pressure efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapon development.
......................................................................
I dished it out to Byron York in Part I because he deserved it. But I don't want to stay stuck in striking back.
Writing Part I told me that Byron York's bashing of Larry is a game for him (as well as publicity for his employers and his book). It's partly a strategy to neuter the Plamegate experts like Larry in anticipation of a Rove indictment. And it's easier to highlight out-of-context statements by Johnson than it is to engage in serious research into Johnson's writings and statements, as well as his solid character. But, while a bash piece is much easier to write, it doesn't teach the reader much about the terribly serious topics of Johson's focus.
I've had the advantage of wonderful exchanges with Larry by e-mail and on the telephone, and I've always asked him lots of questions. He unfailingly answers my questions, thoughtfully, and teaches me something every time. Here's what York completely misses about Larry: He is a straight shooter. I always know where Larry is coming from, what his mood and attitude are, and what he is thinking. He's up front.
If Larry is interpreted as a Bush basher, as York alleges, it's only because he is deeply worried about Bush's poor decisions, lack of thinking about outcomes, and his overdependence on Cheney, Rummy et al., to whom he has ceded "pack leader" status for his in-name-only Bush administration.
I shared York's piece with my daughter who reminded me how frustrated we often are that Larry isn't speaking up about Plamegate on the TV talking-head shows as often as we'd like. We think Larry's point of view is often sorely missing from those discussions. Then my daughter added that Larry is far too busy with his consulting company -- and his heavy load of active contracts -- to appear on many of those shows. She knows because I share news of Larry's schedule with her, and she and I are always amazed that he even finds an hour or so to write a new post for this blog. The man is on the go day and night. And he has many other obligations to his wife and family, and to his many good friends, including his mentor Patrick Lang (blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2006), with whom he spent countless hours writing the recent scholarly article on Iran.
Both Lang and Johnson have told me how time-consuming and often frustrating it is to schedule appearances when asked by TV producers. Lang himself has given up TV appearances altogether.
Given that Larry gains nothing monetarily from these appearances -- he has no book or magazine to sell, unlike the ubiquitous York -- his main motive is to share his deeply held convictions and knowledge.
York's accusation that Larry's a media whore is bunk. Larry's too busy for that. York's article, sadly, was a cheap shot. And a lousy one at that.
Larry Johnson is a Republican. I am not. And so I'll venture to add this example of just how clueless George Bush was about the complexities of what we are facing in this age of nuclear proliferation, from the first 2004 presidential debate between him and Democratic candidate John Kerry:
BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. [GOOD, GEORGE. GOOD BOY.]
And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.
We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.
KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.
The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice.
Yes. The world is now more dangerous. Whether you voted for him or not, it's key to note that John Kerry at least had a grasp of the complex range of dangers worldwide. George Bush is incapable of complex considerations and outcome projections.
And, while York is fiddlng around, taking cheap shots at Larry Johnson -- who's in constant contact with a wide array of highly experienced counterterrorism and intelligence experts, as well as working daily in the field of counterrorism as a sought-after expert -- we're saddled with the least knowledgeable, most simple-minded president possible. The president Byron York backs. It's tragic. For us and for the world.