The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Who is this guy anyway? Nutjob, yes, but what is his day job?

If it's the same guy, and I think it is, here's his Bio.

 

Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticised many of the default United States and Western world assumptions about the motives for Islamic terrorism, and put these into the context of greater Western-Islamic relations.

 

Scheuer left the Jamestown Foundation in February 2009 from a position as Senior Fellow. He claimed in an anti-war.com article that he was fired by the organization for his outspoken views on US-Israel relations.[1] Jamestown's current president, Glen Howard, has pejoratively likened his views to those of two-time presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul.

Was the guy who wrote that book "Imperial Hubris" a few years ago, as an anonymous author from within the CIA.

[StrangeSox]

Probably just any number of "experts" who do nothing but give opinions on TV shows. It was a while ago, but someone here (Balta?) posted some interesting stuff on that. There's even seminars you can take to be a pundit without any real expertise or knowledge.

 

edit: what Balta said. Seems weird for him to say that, as everything on his wiki page indicates that he's left-of-center and not exactly a booga booga guy. I'd like some more context for that quote, but then I'd have to watch Glenn Beck.

Edited July 1, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

If it's the same guy, and I think it is, here's his Bio.

 

Was the guy who wrote that book "Imperial Hubris" a few years ago, as an anonymous author from within the CIA.

That's the guy? He actually knows what he's talking about. What an absurd statement though.

[lostfan]

Probably just any number of "experts" who do nothing but give opinions on TV shows. It was a while ago, but someone here (Balta?) posted some interesting stuff on that. There's even seminars you can take to be a pundit without any real expertise or knowledge.

 

edit: what Balta said. Seems weird for him to say that, as everything on his wiki page indicates that he's left-of-center and not exactly a booga booga guy. I'd like some more context for that quote, but then I'd have to watch Glenn Beck.

He's actually not a wackjob which is why it's so odd. I've quoted him before, even. Something to the effect that al-Qaida doesn't give a damn about our "freedoms" and that we watch R-rated movies and have women's rights and such and that our government (then it was Bush) needs to stop patronizing us and explain they attack us for what we are, not what we do.

[Balta1701]

He's actually not a wackjob which is why it's so odd. I've quoted him before, even. Something to the effect that al-Qaida doesn't give a damn about our "freedoms" and that we watch R-rated movies and have women's rights and such and that our government (then it was Bush) needs to stop patronizing us and explain they attack us for what we are, not what we do.

Perhaps he's a solid example of what living under a torture-regime does to the people who's job it is to propagate those methods.

[NorthSideSox72]

He's actually not a wackjob which is why it's so odd. I've quoted him before, even. Something to the effect that al-Qaida doesn't give a damn about our "freedoms" and that we watch R-rated movies and have women's rights and such and that our government (then it was Bush) needs to stop patronizing us and explain they attack us for what we are, not what we do.

Could be he went the Cheney route - something snapped after 9/11 and now he's paranoid to the point of being mildly insane (though still intelligent).

 

[lostfan]

Could be he went the Cheney route - something snapped after 9/11 and now he's paranoid to the point of being mildly insane (though still intelligent).

This is the first time I've ever seen him say anything off-base.

[BigSqwert]

There's even seminars you can take to be a pundit without any real expertise or knowledge.

Like Joe the Plumber.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is the first time I've ever seen him say anything off-base.

I don't know then. Maybe he is possessed by Dick Cheney.

 

[lostfan]

I don't know then. Maybe he is possessed by Dick Cheney.

Sith Lords can have more than one apprentice right?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Saddam And Bush Had Same Position On Geneva Convention

 

FBI Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, March 13, 2004

 

Regarding limitations placed on the Iraqi military during this time period [when Iraqi troops were crushing the post-Gulf War uprising in 1991], Hussein asked, "What do you mean by limits?" Hussein denied that the Geneva convention applied to this situation, claiming it only applied to wars. Hussein claimed that with respect to the internal conflict, the Geneva Convention applied only to situations when an occupying power is another country. He claimed that the Geneva Convention was applicable to attempted coups or internal unrest involving crimes such as burning and looting.

[StrangeSox]

Sheuer explains his comments.

 

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

[lostfan]

Ok that makes a LOT more sense and ties better into what I know about him.

 

For the record, Obama's strategic vision of the entire concept is much better than the generic Republican vision (and by extension, Bush's policy) we originally countered with (i.e., invading Iraq for no reason).

Edited July 2, 2009 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok that makes a LOT more sense and ties better into what I know about him.

 

For the record, Obama's strategic vision of the entire concept is much better than the generic Republican vision (and by extension, Bush's policy) we originally countered with (i.e., invading Iraq for no reason).

That is indeed a lot more logical, though still over the top IMO.

 

ETA: I was referring to the dude's statements, not yours, as over the top.

 

[lostfan]

That is indeed a lot more logical, though still over the top IMO.

 

ETA: I was referring to the dude's statements, not yours, as over the top.

Yeah, he's one of the ones that sees Islamic militancy as a threat that's going to get worse and worse and that we need to do something about it. Which is kind of ironic since he also criticizes our foreign policy and says that it feeds into their propaganda as an unintended consequence. So I'm not sure what exactly he'd want us to do, it's my opinion that whenever we leave Iraq (whenever that is) that it's something that's an intelligence and special operations problem that shouldn't involve a whole lot of conventional military if it can be avoided.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, he's one of the ones that sees Islamic militancy as a threat that's going to get worse and worse and that we need to do something about it. Which is kind of ironic since he also criticizes our foreign policy and says that it feeds into their propaganda as an unintended consequence. So I'm not sure what exactly he'd want us to do, it's my opinion that whenever we leave Iraq (whenever that is) that it's something that's an intelligence and special operations problem that shouldn't involve a whole lot of conventional military if it can be avoided.

Yeah, I think people of his mindset tend to ignore that our meddling is one of the reasons they hate us so much to begin with. Meddling more may not be the brightest idea ever.

 

I am more of the mind to get us off foreign oil ASAP, and put us in a position where that region has nothing we need. That way, any involvement we have is because we want to be involved, plus we'd be in a much better leverage position.

 

[lostfan]

Yeah, I think people of his mindset tend to ignore that our meddling is one of the reasons they hate us so much to begin with. Meddling more may not be the brightest idea ever.

 

I am more of the mind to get us off foreign oil ASAP, and put us in a position where that region has nothing we need. That way, any involvement we have is because we want to be involved, plus we'd be in a much better leverage position.

Well like I was saying, he knows that. IIRC a couple years back Ron Paul said during a debate that American foreign policy played a role in the spread of terrorism and Giuliani dismissed it out of hand and said it's because they hate our way of life. That's a crowd-pleasing comment especially for the GOP base but it's a pretty ignorant statement to make for someone that thinks they want to be president (granted, al-Qaida would like to rule the world under a global Islamic caliphate and all but that isn't why they attack us). Scheuer backed up Paul on this.

 

There's a line somewhere between defense/eliminating terrorism, and outright meddling. I can't quite put my finger on where that line is according to Scheuer.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, he's one of the ones that sees Islamic militancy as a threat that's going to get worse and worse and that we need to do something about it. Which is kind of ironic since he also criticizes our foreign policy and says that it feeds into their propaganda as an unintended consequence. So I'm not sure what exactly he'd want us to do, it's my opinion that whenever we leave Iraq (whenever that is) that it's something that's an intelligence and special operations problem that shouldn't involve a whole lot of conventional military if it can be avoided.

 

It seems like he's just an isolationist. Bring everyone home and our troubles will go away.

[lostfan]

It seems like he's just an isolationist. Bring everyone home and our troubles will go away.

Not exactly. I can't get a read on him. He wants to confront al-Qaida but how? I guess I have to read one of his books.

[StrangeSox]

Not exactly. I can't get a read on him. He wants to confront al-Qaida but how? I guess I have to read one of his books.

 

It's all a clever marketing ploy

[lostfan]

It's all a clever marketing ploy

lol. Yup.

 

I've started getting into this kind of reading lately. Once I graduate (in October) I'll start reading more national security type books.

[Balta1701]

Not exactly. I can't get a read on him. He wants to confront al-Qaida but how? I guess I have to read one of his books.

If his statement on the Glenn Beck show is accurate, he wants to confront them by doubling-down on the torture regime.

[Balta1701]

Scheuer showed up on the Alan Colmes radio show today and Colmes asked him point blank if he thought President Obama cared about protecting this country.

COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.

 

SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]

 

COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?

 

SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]

 

COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?

 

SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.

[NorthSideSox72]

Scheuer showed up on the Alan Colmes radio show today and Colmes asked him point blank if he thought President Obama cared about protecting this country.

That is ridiculous. Even if you think Obama is a buffoon, I can't see how anyone in their right mind can think Obama doesn't care about protecting the country. That is just assinine.

 

[Balta1701]

On a different subject, Washington Post Media critic Howard Kurtz today has a classic example of a major issue in the media. He writes a column about whether African American reporters can appropriately and fairly cover the Obamas, and whether female African Americans can appropriately be critical of Michele Obama in particular.

 

Maybe he's right, maybe they truly can't be objective because they're the same race. But what's the one question that doesn't get asked in reply? Can a white reporter fairly cover a white politician? Why of course they can, why would anyone think that's a problem! Being white and male is normal, right!?