Larry Johnson is a policital hack.

This is not killing the messenger, it's pointing out a fact. If I were to post a factual article written by Ann Coulter, or an environmental opinion issued by an oil company, what would you say?

The article he wrote in 2001 can be found here.

Remember: According to the latest Myth of the Left, this is the time period when the Bush administration was supposedly ignoring terrorism, and blissfully playing golf while the Democrats and all the sensible people were screaming about the oncoming dangers.

At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's.

Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries — Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts.

...The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia — you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.

...I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.

Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.

Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.

I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

The Democrats picked this guy out of thousands of "ex-CIA employees" to carry their water. You might call this the reverse of "killing the messenger." Call it "gilding the messenger." Somebody's resume is used to enhance what they say to people who cast more importance on those sorts of things.

How many ex-CIA agents are there? EVERY class of citizen is going to have rabid partisans on both sides in it. These are cherry-picked, and make the rounds of press conferences, news articles, and all the rest.

Does it bother you at all that it's always the same two or three names in all these articles?