Is Michael Scheuer Actually Urging an Attack on America?

[...] by Spencer Ackerman on his blog today, there’s already a response from Scheuer trying to clarify his remarks.  [...]

Spencer, What I tried to say on FOX last night is what I said in my last two books. I believe that our governing elite has a single foreign policy vis. the Muslim World and that it has no contact points with reality. Americans are therefore very inadequately protected. I increasingly believe that our leaders' perception of the threat and attempts to defeat it are verging on the feckless, and that most Americans — concerned with the economy, raising families, and quite insular in any event — do not recognize the poor job leaders in both parties are doing in defending their country, homes, and family. I am afraid that another, greater-than-9/11 attack will occur — because our leaders see the world that they want to be and not the one on offer — and that only then will Americans starkly see what I believe is unconscionable failure of the federal goverment to put their safety first. My bottom line is that there will be another attack because the Republicans and Democrats are abject incompetents and because our current economic state is too good a chance for bin Laden not to try to push forward al-Qaeda's “bleed America to bankruptcy” strategey . Far from wishing for another attack, I trust that Churchill's judgment that God looks out for drunks and the United States of America still holds good and and we remain safe. God better do the job, because no one in our elite is doing it.

Respectfully, Mike Scheuer

Normally, I try to use reasonable words in public. That's not the case he.

Michael Scheuer, go away forever you moron.

Beck and Scheuer are now adding their voices to those of The Republican Advance Team For Terrorism. This is a group led by Dick Cheney who has been busily promoting the notion that America is “less safe” under the Obama administration so it would be a good time to attack. With Beck’s participation, it is now not only a good time to attack, it is also good policy.

Wake up America – sounds like more false-flag terrorism heading your way.

With any luck he and Mr Beck will be at ground zero when Mr Scheuer's wish comes true.

I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut it. I have watched the video several times and what you are saying in this half-assed apology is NOT what you said on the Glenn Beck show. Further you should be well aware of the audience you were reaching and the likely reaction to encouragement of violence. Further I strongly dissagree that become ever more violent will in any way keep us safer. There is a reason for the adages “Violence begets violence” and “Live by the sword, die by the sword”!

I never apologize for something I did not say. But there is little point in arguing with someone who believes war never settles anything. Think about slavery — war ended that. Scheuer

Mike,

I put your comments here up as a separate post and reacted to them. I hope I have not constructed any straw men. Still, don't you think you could have phrased this all a lot better?

Respectfully,
Spencer

AS to Longstreet the question still remains: how do we defeat the spectre of terrorist tactics without profoundly damaging our open society and remaining civil rights? The Bush option was totalitarian authoritarianism with clear aspirations to fascism in the sense that corporations would be combined with religious and civil authorities to “streamline government.” Obama is not really opposing that shift.
If we aren't going to attack Al Qaeda at its Saudi roots but are committed to piddling around attacking and occupying targets of economic value like Iraq and Afghanistan, we aren't fighting Islamic extremism at all-we are supporting and encouraging it. The War on Terror has simply been a war on American citizens, our civil rights, and our ability to oversee corporate and government activities and regulate them in the interests of the public good.

Sure, Spencer, everything I say off the cuff could be said better. Still, what I said on Beck was said in the context of “absurd” situations that Americans confront when thinking about their security: unarmed national guard troops to stop narco violence but not bother about illegal immigrants; armed civilian minutemen perhaps having to come to the rescue of unarmed guardsmen; Osama having to attack us to make Americans see how poorly thet are defended — if all these things are not lethally absurd I do not know what would be absurd. Mike Scheuer

[...] for the following step back/clarification….not buying it. Longstreet 8 hours ago Spencer, What I tried to say on FOX last night is what I said in my last two books. I believe [...]

But bin Laden did attack us, did he not? Did that attack make US defenses against such attacks better? It would seem not from your argument that there are at least as many problems with the defenses as there were before, so the sole rationale about your wishing for another attack would be mostly to prove that you were right. I mean, aside from all the dead people, of course.

Poppycock, Mr. Scheuer. You're doing CYA now, but your words were crystal clear. Your crowd spent 8 years calling liberals traitors, but this brief snippet told the true story: When you don't get your way, you call for the destruction of the village to “save it.”

You are DESPICABLE. You, and your enablers, Messrs. Beck and Murdoch.

SHAME on you all. Traitors, indeed. Calling for the destruction of America because you're not getting what you want when you want it.

Disgusting.

you don't have to wait for fascism, terrorism, or a war on the American constitution. We have it already in the white house and congress.

Mary: If you ever read anything I wrote you would know I don't have a crowd — both parties are manned by incompetent moral cowards and ideologues, fascists around Bush, socialists around Obama. Neither group cares for anything but keeping their grip on power no matter the cost to the folks they are charged with protecting.

Mike Scheuer

You make my point well. We are completely undefended, and I fear that only when we are attacked again will Americans see that reality and seek substantive change by electing men and women who will stop the overseas interventionism that our bipartisan governing elite loves and which will be the motivation behind the next attack.

Mike Scheuer

But your point is falsified by the fact that two al Qaeda attacks on New York City — on the same target — have left us with the system you claim leaves us “completely undefended.” What makes you think another attack would do anything otherwise? What's far more likely is that your wish for an attack would distract from any actual effort toward security, with governmental leaders pushing for, say, a war somewhere on the other side of the world.

You know, sort of like the last time we were attacked.

And frankly, if you can't tell that someone like Glenn Beck is so crazy that you shouldn't be going on his show, that's just further proof that your judgment is impaired.

May hope would be that Americans are not stupid but inattentive and far too trusting of people in power, and that, if we are attacked, they would see the unacceptable price of interventionism and vote to stop it.

Mike Scheuer

That didn't happen the last time we were attacked. Wishing for another attack in the hope that the people who are in charge — on both sides of the aisles of power — would do something different than they've done for the past twenty, thirty, or forty years when they viewed something as a threat is…oh, whaddya call it when someone expects a different result when the same thing happens over and over?

Plus, the guy you were talking to on TV would be one of the first people calling for indiscriminately dropping the bomb if there was another attack.

I am not wishing for an attack. If your pessimism is right, our republic is pretty much doomed. I guess I am a bit of a romantic, but I want to believe most Americans will find a political way out of this mess if they can finally see the problem clearly and then act by voting to clean out the stables.

Mike Scheuer

“My” pessimism? I'm not the one who thinks a nuclear attack by terrorists is the only way Americans can be persuaded to pursue a more rational path toward defense and international policy.

In fact, I think it's pretty clear from history that another attack would provide the kind of people you're railing against yet another opportunity to muddy the waters and screw things up even further than they already have since the last attack.

Not that that matters to people like Glenn Beck, who thinks the black helicopters of the UN and the One World Government are coming to put him and like-minded “patriots” in internment camps.

Enough said, I guess.

Scheuer

Spencer:

This is not the first time that Mike Scheuer has boarded the Glen Beck crazy train on the neocon Fox network, probably because he hates Obama. When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

It's too bad Scheuer is ruining his reputation on his core competency like this and is blowing away any intellectual consistency he might have previously possessed. I know he used to be anti-neocon but now he just sounds like a shill for Israel. His 2004 book, Imperial Hubris, was terrific and was the first thing I read that lead me to seek a deeper understanding of what 9/11 was about and, believe me, Scheuer was not about “protecting us with as much violence as necessary.” He was about disentangling from the Middle East and pursuing a more even-handed policy with respect to Israel.

He should apologize for selling out his principles and attempt to recover his reputation. You don't see Richard Clarke making a fool of himself like this. But you do see Larry Johnson and Michael Scheuer making utter fools of themselves. It's plain to see.

Mr. Scheuer is a CIA terrorist. Yes, he should be investigated.

I like that you came on the blog here and are replying to this. This conversation is important.

What I can't understand is the idea that violence is the only real way to change things.

At the heart of it all, I find people who believe this, are people who haven't looked around and seen how much good there is around us all; you can look and pick out the bad and harp on it all day long; or you can start to look at the world in a more nuanced way, and appreciate the riches in it, and let imagination flow into ideas for fixing things–not deterioriate into which cave-man has the bigger and better toys.

Also, without reading Obama's book, all these people including yourself, I guess, are really rushing to judgement on this one man who is now our President. Have you read The Audacity of Hope? Or his other one?

People who go on TV to be talking heads, who hurl verbal turds at Obama without having read all the things he's taken time to write down about this country—-it seems really weak to me. Mr. Scheuer, if you love your country, please read at least one of those books. “Audacity” reads like a love letter to America and anyone who considers himself a patriot would do well to engage in dialogue that involves listening and not just talking.

“…no matter the cost to the folks they are charged with protecting?”

So the costs that you are proposing are acceptable? Countless thousands of deaths of innocent Americans? Let me remind you of your words:

“…the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”

If you regard this as our only chance, then you must be praying for it. Because the alternative, in your view, is no chance at all, and I assume that you aren't advocating that. So which is it?

Why can't you just admit that it was a stupid thing to say? Or do you stand by it as that idiot Beck did?

“I have a lot of respect for Michael Scheuer.”

Read the 9/11 report have ya ? The Looming Tower ? Any book about 9/11 ?
I know if Microsoft had been identified by everyone as the biggest reason 9/11 was allowed to happen because of BS inter-software company rivalries, I wouldn't open a post about Bill Gates with the sentence “I have a lot of respect for Bill when it comes to CT efforts”.

Scheuer wouldn't be able to publish a book or be booked on a single talk show anywhere if 9/11 didn't happen. That whole Bin Laden Unit withholding identities of known al Qaeda planners entering the US from the FBI really turned out a treat for his media career, didn't it now.

I did read “Audacity” and found it both well written and moving. I guess
I just believe that America should always come first, and that until we
have everybody, fed, employed, and educated here at home we should not be going
adventuring overseas — either militarily or foreign-aid wise. The point
I tried to make is we need to be better defended here at home if we are to
be able to achieve those things the president writes about. Security has
to proceed social and economic progress, as we have seen proven in spades in
Afghanistan and Iraq. What I see is not just an Obama failure, but a
prolonged bipartisan governing elite failure from which all Americans of all
parties and no parties suffer.

In a message dated 7/2/2009 12:46:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

lolana wrote, in response to Longstreet:

I like that you came on the blog here and are replying to this. This
conversation is important.

What I can't understand is the idea that violence is the only real way to
change things.

At the heart of it all, I find people who believe this, are people who
haven't looked around and seen how much good there is around us all; you can
look and pick out the bad and harp on it all day long; or you can start to
look at the world in a more nuanced way, and appreciate the riches in it,
and let imagination flow into ideas for fixing things–not deterioriate into
which cave-man has the bigger and better toys.

Also, without reading Obama's book, all these people including yourself, I
guess, are really rushing to judgement on this one man who is now our
President. Have you read The Audacity of Hope? Or his other one?

People who go on TV to be talking heads, who hurl verbal turds at Obama
without having read all the things he's taken time to write down about this
country—-it seems really weak to me. Mr. Scheuer, if you love your
country, please read at least one of those books. “Audacity” reads like a love
letter to America and anyone who considers himself a patriot would do well
to engage in dialogue that involves listening and not just talking.

Link to comment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-micha…

–
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0…)

First you claim you didn't say what you said… can you say 'youtube'? Then you answer something I didn't say which you can read directly above. I never said 'war never settles anything'. But lets look at your example, how much better off would the country be even now if the parties involved could have reached the point of ending slavery without resorting to war? Violence should be the absolute last choice, not the first. Our violent response to 9/11 has been the best recruiting tool Osama ever had.

Watch the whole video not just the you tube clip. Violence always should be
the last resort, as it was during the American Revolution, the Civil War,
and that little fracas with Adolph Hitler. What should we have done after
9/11, hold hands, sing, pile up flowers, and hope that bad guys go away?
All three occasions of violence I mentioned above brought very good things.
I am afraid you are of a generation that has been taught by what passes
for American education that all things are negotiable and that compromise can
always be reached. This is fatal nonsense, and laughable in terms of
history and all we know about human nature over the ages. Human beings are
hard-wired for war and the best you can do is to contain it.

Mike Scheuer

In a message dated 7/2/2009 1:13:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

Barbara Talbott (unregistered) wrote, in response to Longstreet:

First you claim you didn't say what you said… can you say 'youtube'?
Then you answer something I didn't say which you can read directly above. I
never said 'war never settles anything'. But lets look at your example,
how much better off would the country be even now if the parties involved
could have reached the point of ending slavery without resorting to war?
Violence should be the absolute last choice, not the first. Our violent
response to 9/11 has been the best recruiting tool Osama ever had.

Link to comment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-micha…

–
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0…)

Quoth Michael Scheuer:

I guess I just believe that America should always come first, and that until we
have everybody, fed, employed, and educated here at home we should not be going
adventuring overseas — either militarily or foreign-aid wise.
———————–

You had me agreeing with you until here. Are you really suggesting that there is no role or even room for (and I detest this term) “soft power?” That the United States should retreat into some isolationist shell and then rejoin the world in a few hundred years once we've worked out every little internal problem?

I don't think that's even possible in an interconnected, globalized economy, let alone advisable. Poverty, hunger, unemployment, undereducation – these domestic problems are inextricably linked to the world problems of poverty, hunger, unemployment, and undereducation. The old “USA First, Screw The Rest of the World” mentality is, I believe, just as damaging as the interventionist mentality we've had since the 1950s.

Scheuer, whatever the value of your positions may or may not be, you have to at least accept the fact that putting those positions forward on a platform like Beck's Surreal Circus of Insanity makes them immediately suspect.

Maybe you were not aware of or didn't know Beck's lack of any relationship with reality, but your continuing to use the frames and language you chose on Colmes' show merits you the types of responses you've received here.

And if you see no difference in the Obama approach to the Muslim world and the GOP's, maybe you do belong in the dimly-lit, violent Bizarro world of Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney, and Frank Gaffeney after all.

“What should we have done after 9/11, hold hands, sing, pile up flowers, and hope that bad guys go away?”

So simultaneously with arguing that we should have done exactly what we did after the 9/11 attack (i.e. invade Afghanistan rather than directly target al Qaeda and invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11)you're arguing that 9/11 wasn't enough to make the government take the defense of the US seriously enough?

That's where your argument runs off the rails. Because if the government's responses after the 1993 bombing of the WTC and 9/11 attacks made us less safe — and I'll give you that point, because I agree with you — what makes you think that their response after an even more serious attack would be better? Back when Cheney and Bush were pushing Saddam Hussein as USA Enemy #1, people were advocating nuking Iraq, which was about as blameless as could be on the 9/11 front. Do you seriously think those same people would hesitate to advocate dropping the bomb on Pakistan or Iran? I don't.

So how do I get a job as a CIA analyst? I can do research. And I think my judgment's better.

Is your point to discuss or abuse?

I'd say I was operating in the same vein as someone who'd claim that the only other option after 9/11 was to “hold hands, sing, pile up flowers, and hope that bad guys go away.” Was your comment discussion or abuse?

And actually, I think I would have made a good CIA analyst. I remember reading recruiting announcements in the computer science department I was attending back in the very early 1980s and thinking that it sounded interesting but that I probably wouldn't get anywhere because of my liberal views, even though I wasn't politically active at the time. Right wingers only need apply was the impression. Too bad, because it seems as if they could have used some diversity of thought.

No my comment was simple reality. Kill all of those who intend to kill you and yours. The 9/11 response was correct, but too weak to kill all who merited annihilation.

Mike Scheuer

“Socialists around Obama”? Spencer, get you a new hero. This guy is a dangerous, fearmongering lunatic. That he receives national media attention is the truly fearsome thing.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

But we killed a bunch of people who had nothing to do with “killing you and yours.” We didn't get the people who were actually behind the attacks. And part of the legacy of the response to 9/11 is that the US attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

How was any of that — particularly the last point — possibly a “correct” response? Do you at all understand why you're coming off as out of touch with reality?

Where you have lost touch with reality is to think an insurgency can be fought and won without killing civilians. If you think that's possible you better pile the flowers, light the candles, and cry the tears. The only problem with the 9/11 response is that we did not use enough force to win.

Mike Scheuer

If you use any amount of force on the wrong people it won't do you a whit of good, Mr. Scheuer. If you attack the Iraqi and Afghan civilians and let the guys from al Qaeda get away, then you could use all the force the US could bring to bear and it would not change a damn thing.

I think your comments here go a great way toward showing why the US was attacked on 9/11 in the first place. With the kind of judgment you've been showing, even if your superiors had listened to your warnings about bin Laden, you probably would have advocated a course of action that would only have screwed things up even more.

I wouldn't be surprised if before 9/11 you were hoping for just something of the sort to “wake America up.” Now, since we haven't been woken to your satisfaction, you want only a bigger and bloodier attack on the US to take place. To paraphrase you, al Qaeda “did not use enough force.”

And, for what it's worth, it strikes me you have read little history.
Destroying human and material infrastructure networks always assist in the
destruction of the enemy they support. US-UK bomber strikes in WWII pin
downed more than a million German soldiers who otherwise would have fought us or
the Red Army. There is no way to conduct war and win without civilian
casualties, and that's why it essential to kill widely and quickly, end the
war, and then come home. None of those things have been done by our political
leaders since 1945 and that's why we've lost every war we have fought
since then. The only mercy in war is the fast and complete defeat of the
enemy, otherwise you get prolonged, inhuman, unwinnable adventures like Iraq and
Afghanistan, wars that are conducted in the name of brutally imposing
secular democracy and women's rights on Muslim societies who want no part of
them.

Mike Scheuer

a message dated 7/2/2009 7:46:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

darrelplant wrote, in response to Longstreet:

If you use any amount of force on the wrong people it won't do you a whit
of good, Mr. Scheuer. If you attack the Iraqi and Afghan civilians and let
the guys from al Qaeda get away, then you could use all the force the US
could bring to bear and it would not change a damn thing.

I think your comments here go a great way toward showing why the US was
attacked on 9/11 in the first place. With the kind of judgment you've been
showing, even if your superiors had listened to your warnings about bin
Laden, you probably would have advocated a course of action that would only have
screwed things up even more.

I wouldn't be surprised if before 9/11 you were hoping for just something
of the sort to “wake America up.” Now, since we haven't been woken to your
satisfaction, you want only a bigger and bloodier attack on the US to take
place. To paraphrase you, al Qaeda “did not use enough force.”

Link to comment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-micha…

–
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0…)

Actually, you're the one who doesn't seem to know your history.

We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped during all of World War II. We killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people and spent untold billions of dollars, for no particular reason. What did that get us? I take it that you think we should have just nuked Hanoi or something. What exactly would that have accomplished apart from killing even more people?

And what is Iraq, chopped liver? Fallujah? You seem to think that was some sort of panty-waist operation. Shock and Awe sounds like it was tailor-made for your tastes. A million dead, four million refugees, and Michael Scheuer still thinks that's not enough. Of course, you're still avoiding the question of why anyone in their right mind would invade a country that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11 but then I guess in Scheuer-world once you've dug a hole the only way out is to keep digging.

And Afghanistan. Well, I certainly remember my recent history about Afghanistan. Especially the part about the Soviet Union collapsing after spending a decade trying to grind out a CIA-sponsored fundamentalist Muslim insurgency. Does that sound familiar to you? What I can't understand is why anyone would advocate for invading and occupying (and killing) the entire country instead of targeting al Qaeda camps. But I'm sure you can once again avoid that question as well.

You of course have to hit the target, or hit it approximately. Bush did
not have the moral courage to do that, being more concerned with I suppose
with those flower-pilers/candle-holders.

I wonder, in passing, whether your self-professed “liberal” views and
obvious tender-hearted and genuine concern for “innocents” has made you a
staunch anti-abortionist?

In a message dated 7/2/2009 8:38:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

darrelplant wrote, in response to Longstreet:

Actually, you're the one who doesn't seem to know your history.

We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped during all of World War
II. We killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people and spent untold
billions of dollars, for no particular reason. What did that get us? I take
it that you think we should have just nuked Hanoi or something. What
exactly would that have accomplished apart from killing even more people?

And what is Iraq, chopped liver? Fallujah? You seem to think that was some
sort of panty-waist operation. Shock and Awe sounds like it was
tailor-made for your tastes. A million dead, four million refugees, and Michael
Scheuer still thinks that's not enough. Of course, you're still avoiding the
question of why anyone in their right mind would invade a country that had
nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11 but then I guess in Scheuer-world once
you've dug a hole the only way out is to keep digging.

And Afghanistan. Well, I certainly remember my recent history about
Afghanistan. Especially the part about the Soviet Union collapsing after spending
a decade trying to grind out a CIA-sponsored fundamentalist Muslim
insurgency. Does that sound familiar to you? What I can't understand is why anyone
would advocate for invading and occupying (and killing) the entire country
instead of targeting al Qaeda camps. But I'm sure you can once again avoid
that question as well.

Link to comment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-micha…

–
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0…)

“You of course have to hit the target, or hit it approximately. Bush did not have the moral courage to do that…”

He managed to hit the civilian population of two different countries — which you seem to endorse — without doing anything. I don't think it was his lack of moral courage that was behind that. More like sheer stupidity. Probably listening to people like you.

“I wonder, in passing, whether your self-professed “liberal” views and
obvious tender-hearted and genuine concern for “innocents” …”

What make you think I object to killing people? What I don't think is a good plan is killing people indiscriminately for no particular reason. If the US had gone into Afghanistan specifically to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives and leaders after 9/11 (or before) that would have been one thing. Occupying the whole country eight years after letting the same people escape? Invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with it for six years (and counting)? That just seems like an idiot's plan for the destruction of the US military and the economy.

Sort of like hoping for an American city to be wiped off the face of the globe, like you do.

Mr Scheuer, it's wonderful that this debate has ranged into history and whatnot, but for those of us who were below 14th on the morning of September 11th, please try to feel for a second how terrible it is to hear someone on a news program say that our only hope as a nation is to have a repeat of that morning. Sure, you studied Bin Laden and history, but many of us lived that morning not as scholars or analyists, but as targets. I realize it's advantageous for you to take this discussion away from your comments on Beck's show, but some of us would love to hear a direct response to your quote.

Although, I suppose at the end of the day, you don't need to have an iota of feeling for those of us who were in NY, or for the thousands who died, or for their families. This wasn't a news story ripe for punditry for us. It was a nightmare.

Via a dictionary:

terrorist

–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or ADVOCATES TERRORISM.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

By definition, Michael Scheuer is a terrorist. Michael Scheuer is a traitor. Arrest him!

Contact? your local FBI office and report Michael Scheuer for advocating terrorism.

I had hunch you would avoid the question.

Mike Scheuer

In a message dated 7/2/2009 9:32:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

darrelplant wrote, in response to Longstreet:

“You of course have to hit the target, or hit it approximately. Bush did
not have the moral courage to do that…”

He managed to hit the civilian population of two different countries —
which you seem to endorse — without doing anything. I don't think it was his
lack of moral courage that was behind that. More like sheer stupidity.
Probably listening to people like you.

“I wonder, in passing, whether your self-professed “liberal” views and

obvious tender-hearted and genuine concern for “innocents” …”

What make you think I object to killing people? What I don't think is a
good plan is killing people indiscriminately for no particular reason. If the
US had gone into Afghanistan specifically to capture or kill al Qaeda
operatives and leaders after 9/11 (or before) that would have been one thing.
Occupying the whole country eight years after letting the same people
escape? Invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with it for six
years (and counting)? That just seems like an idiot's plan for the
destruction of the US military and the economy.

Sort of like hoping for an American city to be wiped off the face of the
globe, like you do.

Link to comment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-micha…

–
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0…)

[...] however, expressed disappointment in Scheuer’s comments and hoped that he was “being taken out of context,” citing his respect for Scheuer’s previous national security work. Unfortunately, it [...]

Of course he is urging an attack on America. Someone should be putting this traitorous bastard in jail. It's fairly obvious these neocon scum simply do not believe in Democracy and are actively working to get as many Americans killed as they can.

They should never be allowed to forget their shame.

riiiiigt.. and the first 9/11 happened… why? We have only had two major terrorist attacks on US soil in my time. One was on a Republicans administrations “watch” and the other was actually carried out by a Republican. Right wingers are dangerous. You should be far more concerned about them than about Obama.

“I had hunch you would avoid the question.”

Did you ask a question about foreign policy or national security? Did you ever answer any of my questions or did you just make up more loony assertions? And seriously, why should I answer the questions of some anonymous crazy posting under Michael Scheuer's name?

Sorry for the late response, I missed the incoming. I think that the most
dangerous thing Americans face is the leadership elite of both parties.
Think for a moment what has not been done in the last 35 years and see if
you think either party has the best interests of Americans at heart.

–Continued dependence on foreign oil
–Bankrupting social security and Medicare
–No border controls/11 million-plus undocumented aliens
–Failure (since 1991) to make sure all Soviet nuclear devices are under
control
–Failing to win a single war in which America has been involved
–Starting unnecessary wars (Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, etc.) without the
constitution's required declaration of war
–Enormous numbers of billions of dollars in wasted foreign aid ($28
billion in '08) while Americans are unfed
–A depth of debt that is almost unimaginable, much of it held by our foes,
China and Saudi Arabia
–The continuing purchase of weapons systems irrelevant to America's
defense needs
–Sending our soldiers and marines overseas with rules of engagement that
makes them targets not killers
–A relationship with Israel that has involved us in the Israeli-Arab
religious war in which we have no stake

While there are many dangers in and to America, there is no greater danger
to our republic than our bipartisan governing class.

Mike Scheuer

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:07:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

nobody (unregistered) wrote, in response to Longstreet:

riiiiigt.. and the first 9/11 happened… why? We have only had two major
terrorist attacks on US soil in my time. One was on a Republicans
administrations “watch” and the other was actually carried out by a Republican.
Right wingers are dangerous. You should be far more concerned about them
than about Obama.

Link to comment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/49373/is-micha…

–
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

**************Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove0000…)

Yeah this argument doesn't make sense even if you leave out the crazy bit of hoping that more innocent civilians will be killed. Another terrorist attack would do nothing to make people more willing to accept the conservative security agenda in and of itself. Besides which, why would it have to be Osama Bin Laden? There are plenty of other terrorist groups that could launch such an attack. The guy just has Al-Qaeda on the brain and is forgetting about the many other threats out there.

Because the comments directed toward Mr. Scheuer have generally been emotional knee-jerk reactions, I'd like to propose the following hypothetical alternatives:

a) An isolated terrorist attack which kills 10,000 people but achieves the “wake up call” that Mr. Scheuer advocates
b) A series of coordinated terrorist attacks at a later date which kill 100,000 people

Whether these are the real alternatives that we, as Americans, confront is open to debate. That Mr. Scheuer would advocate “scenario a” in this VERY hypothetical situation and subsequently be called a traitor is an illustration of how comments taken out of context can be overblown by the thin-skinned and naive.

M. Garrett Roth

[...] Washington Independent – Is Michael Scheuer Actually Urging an Attack on America? [...]

My friend suggested me to visit your blog. Very well explained. I would like to say that it is very interesting to read your blog.
regards
charcoal grill

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.

thanks for your shareing

Fashion legancy– we sell famous brand christian louboutin

100% Authentic, 50% discount cheap christian louboutin shoes.

christian louboutin shoes authentic hot sell online, welcome for retail and wholesale christian louboutin,
christian shoes, louboutin shoesorders.

24 hours/day customer service online, louboutin paypal accepted.

Hi, I like to lose weight!
thanks for your shareing
Recently so many people who want to lose weight choose this style shoes– mbt shoes!

we call it massaqi shoes, it is special design have lose weight function.

come to our website, and choose cheap mbt shoes online, 65% discount mbt shoes Cheap MBT Shoes sale online.

welcome for retail and wholesale mbt shoes orders.

100% Authentic quality gurrantee,3 days free shipping.

World cup soccer jerseys is coming, hot sell

soccer jerseys

recently.

we are the wholesale jersey company from china, mainly selling

nfl jerseys

,

mlb jerseys

, and

cheap soccer jerseys

.

all our jerseys are made in embroidered. and top good quality. nowdays, we have so many customers doing

wholesale nfl jerseys

,

wholesale soccer jerseys

,

wholesale mlb jerseys

from us, especialy for the orders in usa, uk, australia, canada, and another euro

countries.

wecome for retail orders and wholesale orders of

cheap nfl jerseys

,

cheap mlb jerseys

, 2010 new nfl jerseys hot sell.

2010 new nfl jerseys

we believe we are your best choice.
http://www.jerseylink.com

hey, do u want to have a straightening hair style?

why are u hestitate!!

come to our website to buy

cheap ghd

,

ghd hair straighteners

online.

we are special ghd website for

ghd purple

,

ghd straighteners

.

welcome for

wholesale ghd

orders online. yours satisfied is our honor.

cheap ghd

cheap ghd hair straighteners

here, get much discount ghd.

surprise so much.

please chlick here to our website.

http://www.hghdoctor.com

thank for your information

I take part of it back. Upon further research, I have discovered that instead of being stupid, he's a greedy, self-promoting scumbag in addition to being a bigot.

Notre objectif est dêtre la plus grande entreprise au monde à vendre de WOW Gold,Nous croyons que nous pouvons,La raison pour laquelle nous Vendre WOW Gold est de vous aider à sortir de la fatigue.