Liberal Fascist Larry Johnson Cutely Advises Congressmen to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Larry Johnson ex CIA and fascist advocate of torture and a member of what appears to be a nascent liberal fascist movement has written a piece on the CIA friendly website Booman Tribune that attempts to portray his position as trying to get the American Policy on Iraq and Iran “back into the realm of sanity”.

America must protect it’s long term interests in Iraq. America must stay in Iraq as long as it needs Iraqi oil. There is no other interpretation of this confused diary by Larry Johnson. It’s cute.

Johnson relates how he met with 14 members of Congress. Perhaps he met with Rahm Emmanuel who knowledge of Iraq is betrayed by his ignorance when he states that Saudi Arabia is governed by a Shiite majority aligned with the Shiites in Iran.

From crooks and liars

“The Iranians are a Persian culture and the House of Saud is a Shiite government, a total different culture and a different people and etc. The question about Saudi Arabia is there is a clear, they have been funding radical schools throughout the Mideast and it is a big problem for us.”
Crooks:
Um, no, Rahm. The ruling mullahs of Iran (who are Persian, you got that right, but that’s an ethnicity, not a religion) are Shi’a. The Saudis are Sunnis. That’s part of the problem. The “insurgents” in Iraq (at least, most of them) are Sunnis.

Larry Johnson says he was encouraged by the response of the illiterate group of fundraisers masquerading as public servants called “Congressman”.

Larry Johnson thinks we should avoid war with Iran but we should tell Iran “The United States will take appropriate steps to punish any groups or states who back terrorist attacks against our interests.”

Translation: We are going to steal your oil and land…they are American interests…anyone who tries to stop us is a terrorist. Please. Doesn’t anybody know how to read between lines in this country? Is it even reading between the lines? How can so called “liberals” allow a person like this to represent “progressives”. Is it liberal to tell other nations we will take what we want from them because it’s in our interests? Isn’t it suggested therefore, that the “interests” of other nations is secondary to American interests and therefore Americans are superior to Iraqi’s in the same way that humans are superior to animals. We eat you because it’s in our interests…don’t take it personally or we will torture you before we eat you.

And this is exactly what President…or whatever you call it… Bush has said. We will attack Iran for providing weapons to the Shiites that kill American troops.

It just so happens that recently the Iraqi/Shiite government signed a deal with China for arms. The reason Iraq had to do this is because the United States is no longer supplying the Shiite, Iranian allied Iraqi government with weapons.

The U.S. has switched sides and is now supplying the Sunnis…who were until recently called “insurgents” with arms to fight the Shiite militias… who were…until recently called “the American trained Iraqi army”.

Now the Shiites are being called, “Al Queda in Iraq and the Sunnis are being called “converts to democracy”.

What is “liberal” fascist Larry Johnson’s solution for Iraq? Is it withdrawing the troops? NO!

Johnson advocates continued American presence in Iraq so that we can take the oil that belongs to Iraq from the Iraqi people for our “strategic interests”. I’m sure Johnson, being a good American, will give the Iraqi’s what Americans consider a fair price for the oil that America steals.

Johnson continues:

“Like it or not we have strategic interests, starting with oil, in the Middle East”.

“We are not going to run for helicopters and abandon Iraq for twenty years like it we did in Vietnam.”
  (Vietnam defeated the U.S. military and is now by all accounts a peaceful, prosperous nation friendly toward the United States with which the United States interacts in trade, commerce and tourism. This is what America’s abandonment of Vietnam produced.)

Johnson is saying we wouldn’t want that to happen to Iraq. How else can this ultra conservative, pro torture fascists comments be interpreted. For most readers, apparently it’s just sounds fine.

Johnson says, “We do not have a large enough military force in Iraq to separate the warring sides and impose a peace.” But Johnson who sounds more Hollywood than CIA says since we can’t get more troops there, we have to rely on….. THE “GREEN BERETS” “as long-term trainers for Iraqi military and police.”

Johnson has no understanding of the so called “warring sides”. The Sunnis and Shiites who have been set up against each other by the Americans themselves. People who got along together fine before the invasion but whom the American public has been told have always “hated each other”. Not so says Riverbend of Baghdad Burning and almost all other people from Iraq. It’s the American news media that says Sunnis and Shiites were at each other’s throats.

We have to start over, the never say die, (unless it’s somebody else who dies)  Johnson says.

How long is long term? How do you measure this fascist’s naiveté? It’s not measurable. The stupidity of his arguments can only be compare to the paucity of his understanding of what is going on in Iraq.

Larry Johnson is dumb. Dumb as a furnace and he accurately reflects the utter stupidity and self-importance and self absorption and glazed mentality of a non-thinking, glossy, non-critical American public.

53 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. I do think Larry Johnson is much overrated and often writes things that make little sense to me

    While Booman is a friend of mine, I do commend your willingness to criticize other Left bloggers, though it would be helpful if you provided evidence to support your charges. I understand Johnson is ex-CIA, so that part of your case is clear to me.

    Welcome to DD.

  2. some facts:

    a) johnson is a republican- he says so. it was the plame case that turned him against the bush administration, but he’s still a republican.

    b) there’s no evidence rahm emanuel was among the people he met. emanuel is a problem, on many levels, but you undermine your argument against johnson by essentially threadjacking your own essay.

    c) he does, indeed, say that we need to tell iran we will take appropriate steps against any supporters of terrorism, but he also says this:

      * The United States wants a friendly relationship with Iran and wants to enlist Iran in helping quell the violence in Iraq.
      * The United States will reward Iran with improved economic ties in exchange for concrete evidence that it will not pursue a nuclear weapon.

    not quite the warmongering tone we’ve been hearing from congress and the white house.

    d) on iraq, he says:

    Second, Congress needs to help educate the American people to the fact that most of the violence we face in Iraq is not caused by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has become a convenient shorthand to describe Islamic extremists of all types, but such labeling does not help us promote a sound strategy for getting the violence under control and promoting sectarian reconciliation.

    sort of undermines your babble about our bizarre shifting allegiances, in iraq. it seems johnson actually does understand how the words “al qaeda in iraq” are being used as a code word boogeyman.

    e) he also writes that we need to keep only trainers, in iraq. i disagree- i’d like us to get out, altogether, but that’s not exactly a recipe for imperialist occupation. he also writes:

    We need to start over and insist that all newly trained units be fully integrated and include Shia and Sunni contingents.

    and

    We must end unilateral military action in Iraq and allow Iraq assert its sovereignty. As long as Blackwater has more clout in the streets of Baghdad than any Iraqi police or military official, then the United States will be blamed for all violence and all that goes wrong.

    f) booman is “cia-friendly?” i don’t read it very often, but you might want to explain that.

    i realize it’s fun to be shrill and dramatic, but it doesn’t do much for the credibility of your claims.

  3. there has always been a sliding scale of fascism and Imperialism.

    As this scale got shaken up and engorged by the Bushco presidency, where people fall on the scale has shifted.

    People I would have considered opponents 20 years ago are now allies. The enemy of my enemy is not a good moral code, but there is alwasy an element of it in Realpolitic.

    Until we defeat the current fascists and can return America to a ‘more acceptable level of fascim,’ lol, under the next Dem president, I support (or at least won’t fully condemn) anyone who is actively opposing Bush in an effective manner. Johnson was a pretty effective voice re the Plame Treason….but we have all forgotten about the Plame Treason and the Libby pardon now….old news I guess.

    Much more interesting to talk about personalities.

    Parsing how much of a fascist Johnson wants to be doesn’t really interest me much.

    I did like this though!

    Larry Johnson says he was encouraged by the response of the illiterate group of fundraisers masquerading as public servants called “Congressman”.

  4. the US DOES have strategic interests in the ME. That can’t be ignored. The question is how to support those interests without stomping on other countries. Unless you think isolationism is even possible anymore.

    This:

    we need to find a way to protect the strategic interests of the United States in the Middle East without going to war with Iran and while extricating our troops from the civil war in Iraq.

    doesn’t translate to your version:

    We are going to steal your oil and land…they are American interests…anyone who tries to stop us is a terrorist.

    Or at least it doesn’t need to.

    I have no ESP so have no idea what Larry Johnson thinks. But I can read, and in that diary you link to what he’s actually saying is that we should withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq and talk to (not attack) Iran.

  5. You know this is what I really hate about this troll rating shit.

    I’m having a conversation with this person and someone else sees fit to jump in with their power to stop our conversation by hiding comments that are not in any sense needing to be hidden.

    Whoever’s been troll rating in this thread and hidden over a third of the comments, fuck you.

  6. I often enjoy your stuff because despite the fact that I tend to disagree with much of it, you usually provide good food for thought.

    This, for example:

    It just so happens that recently the Iraqi/Shiite government signed a deal with China for arms. The reason Iraq had to do this is because the United States is no longer supplying the Shiite, Iranian allied Iraqi government with weapons.

    The U.S. has switched sides and is now supplying the Sunnis…who were until recently called “insurgents” with arms to fight the Shiite militias… who were…until recently called “the American trained Iraqi army”.

    Now the Shiites are being called, “Al Queda in Iraq and the Sunnis are being called “converts to democracy”.

    This is an interesting way to look at the situation.  I’m not certain as to the truth of it, but I’m curious if you are correct.

    Nonetheless, the major problem with this diary, as with many, many of your diaries, is your constant tendency to overstate your case, jump to conclusions, and exaggerate like crazy.

    I agree with you as far as sleep deprivation goes, but fascist?  Liberal fascist?  The crux of the article that you point to is that Johnson finds hope in the fact that some Republicans are turning against the war, right?

    He’s hoping to end the war, Stu.

    Fascists advocate for war.  Johnson is not.

    So, you overstate your case and exaggerate your conclusions.

    But, as I’ve read on MLW, Stu is not a bug, he’s a feature.

    Welcome to docudharma, Stu!

  7. I love you, dude!

Comments have been disabled.