It's good to know at least who you are not. I apologize for not noticing that Johnson was citing you in his blog. So now we have an anonymous post (from you) linking to part of an anonymous "confidential" study supposedly from an unknown person working for the Rand Corp. which you say you somehow "verified" as authentic. (How did you do that?) Apparently Johnson also accepts it as authentic, but such "revelations" are counterproductive since they introduce a large measure of doubt into an argument (that Washington wanted the war from the beginning) that are strong and logical without it (cf. the work of Michael Hudson).
I am not Larry Johnson, and never heard of him before.
Two writers can have the same access to information.
Before making accusations I suggest politely asking and/or doing due diligence.
Thanks.
It's good to know at least who you are not. I apologize for not noticing that Johnson was citing you in his blog. So now we have an anonymous post (from you) linking to part of an anonymous "confidential" study supposedly from an unknown person working for the Rand Corp. which you say you somehow "verified" as authentic. (How did you do that?) Apparently Johnson also accepts it as authentic, but such "revelations" are counterproductive since they introduce a large measure of doubt into an argument (that Washington wanted the war from the beginning) that are strong and logical without it (cf. the work of Michael Hudson).
Use your own discretion.