Archive for the ‘Michael Scheuer’ Category

Michael Scheuer – The Daily Beast

Anybody who thinks the Obama years have been uniquely dominated by Teh Crazy should give a few minutes attention to the career of Michael Scheuer, once one of the most prominent critics of the Bush administrations war on terror.

Scheuers career reached its terminal nadir last week, when he published a column endorsing an assassination of President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron. In the modern media environment, its pretty hard to go too far. Advocacy of murder, however, does cross one of the last remaining lines. These words from the same column cross another:

That Eric Holder and Barack Obama have not been impeached, moreover, suggests that the impeachment provisions of the Constitution are a dead letter; that they apply only to individuals named Nixon; or that they do not apply to black Americans supported by such towering giants of fatuousness as Oprah, Chris Matthews, Fareed Zakaria, Piers Morgan, and Hillary Clinton and her motley band of Viragos.

I dont expect we will be hearing much more in future from the former CBS News analyst, bestselling author, and CIA officer.

Yet Scheuer was not significantly less nuts during his hour of celebrity than he is today. In the pages of the book that made him famous, he revealed himself as a paranoid character, strongly tinged with anti-Semitism. Back in 2004, however, none of that mattered. Here was a figure with plausible national-security credentials (hed worked at the CIAs bin Laden desk!) who argued that the Iraq War was a debacle, that the Afghanistan War was a mistake. Just as any stick will do to beat a dog, so any criticism would do against Bush.

Those were the days when the U.S. was criticized both for overthrowing authoritarian rulers and for propping them up, for imposing its values on others and for caring only about oiloften by the same person, sometimes in the same sentence. In that moment of maximum media attention to any criticism, however self-contradictory, Scheuer released his book Imperial Hubris, under an anonymous byline, carrying only the information that the author was a senior official at the CIA.

The book instantly gained immense attention and praise. It helped that Scheuer had previously released (also anonymously) a more workmanlike book about al Qaedas ideology. Imperial Hubris was anything but workmanlike. It was positively coruscating, in ways that thrilled and amazed reviewersand gained the book almost two months on the New York Times bestseller list.

Anonymity could not last long under such circumstances. Soon Scheuer was out of the CIA and on TV, amplifying the argument of his book. Osama bin Laden, Scheuer contended, was a hugely popular figure in the Muslim world: the most respected, loved, romantic, charismatic, and perhaps able figure in the last 150 years of Islamic history. Scheuer insisted that bin Ladens views were shared by a large percentage of the worlds Muslims across the political spectrum. He utterly rejected the Bush administrations claim that the United States was not at war with Islam. America, he wrote, must recognize that much of Islam is fighting us, and more is leaning that way.

The right way to think about al Qaeda, wrote Scheuer in 2004, was as a global Islamic insurgency. Suppressing so widely backed an insurgency would demand slaughter on an almost unimaginable scale: If U.S. leaders truly believed that the country is at war with bin Laden and the Islamists, they would dump the terminally adolescent bureaucrats and their threat matrix and tell the voters that war brings repeated and at times grievous defeats as well as victories, and proceed with relentless, brutal, and yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us, or so mutilate their forces, supporting populations, and physical infrastructure that they recognize continued war-making on their part is futile.

Fortunately, continued the 2004 Scheuer, such violence was unnecessary because there existed a viable alternative policy: figure out what the terrorists want, and give it to them.

First, the end of all U.S. aid to Israel, the elimination of the Jewish state, and in its stead the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state. Second, the withdrawal of all U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian peninsulaa shift of most units from Saudi Arabia to Qatar fools no Muslims and will not cut the mustardand all Muslim territory. Third, the end of all U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fourth, the end of U.S. support for, and acquiescence in, the oppression of Muslims by the Chinese, Russian, Indian, and other governments. Fifth, restoration of full Muslim control over the Islamic world’s energy resources and a return to market prices [sic], ending the impoverishment of Muslims caused by oil prices set by Arab regimes to placate the West. Sixth, the replacement of U.S.-protected Muslim regimes that do not govern according to Islam by regimes that do.

In the context of 2004, that kind of talk passed for hard-headed thinking. Scheuer aired his views first to CBS News, then on Fox News when his CBS contract lapsed. The longer he remained in the public eye, the more he emphasized one particular theme in the book that made him famous: that it was Israel and the Jews who were to blame for America’s difficulties in the Islamic world. By 2008, Scheuer was arguing that Israel Firsters started the Iraq War. In 2009, Scheuer was sacked by the think tank at which he then worked for denouncing President Obamas choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, damning Emanuel as a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israels military. (Emanuel in fact worked as a civilian volunteer in Israel during the Gulf War )

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don’t).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

The language became progressively more bold and accusatory. The relationship with Israel cost America blood and lives. Israel owns Congress.

In 2012, while Michael Scheuer was campaigning for Ron Paul, a commentator named Mike contributed the following to a Ron Paul forum.

I think Fox television would be missing a bet if it did not create a program called Lets Kill U.S. Kids and Bankrupt America. The show could feature [Gary] Bauer, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton explaining why America needs more and more wars and why the president is above the Constitution and can legally take the country to war without a declaration of war by Congress.

In a subsequent interview with Ron Paul supporters, Scheuer confirmed that he was indeed the Mike who believed that his Fox colleagues wanted to kill kids and bankrupt Americaand that his relationship with Fox had ended as a result.

And so, bump bump bump, all the way down.

America is a big country, and as such it contains a lot of everything, including a lot of people of intemperate, extreme, and bigoted views. In the era of modern media, these people have more opportunity to discover each other and to express themselves ever before. Thats the price of progress.

The good news is that the marketplace of ideas works. False claims (bin Laden is hugely admired in the Islamic world) retreat in the face of contrary evidence. Crackpots eventually reveal themselves as such, and forfeit their influence in consequence.

The bad news is that charlatans are often able to extend their influence with the influence of partisans who should know better, but who find the charlatans charlatanism politically convenient. Over the past five years, Democrats have become excruciatingly sensitive to Republican abuses of this kind. But there was a time, and it wasnt so long ago, when liberal critics of the Bush foreign policy made similar common cause with a long roster of dubious characters: Karen Kwiatkowski, Juan Cole, John Mearsheimer why it seems only yesterday that Ron Paul himself could count on a friendly hearing at MSNBC.

Partisans are seldom over-squeamish about their choice of allies. He may be a crank/crook/bigot, but hes an effective crank/crook/bigot”is a line of reasoning that would have been as familiar to James Monroe as to any modern politician. Yet it is a line of reasoning with some nasty terminuses, not merely for the partisan who follows it, but for the political system as a whole. Instead of arguing over whose hands are dirtier, maybe its time to begin to worry about how all our hands might begin to be cleansed.

Go here to read the rest:

Michael Scheuer – The Daily Beast

Fair Usage Law

June 5, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer: Endall foreign aid, and all immigration …

Michael Scheuer lays out a checklist for dealing with the resistance to the Trump administration, and the misguided foreign intervention policies currently being considered by the Trump administration.

I have a strong case of heart-burn over Trumps military intervention in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The result of these delusional exercises in reinforcing defeat will be the well-established norm: dead, maimed, and PTSD-ed Marines and soldiers; billions of wasted dollars; and more defeats.

How could General McMaster and his fellow generals, for example, believe that the retaking of cities in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan is a game that is worth the candle?

The actor John Wayne is reputed to have said that Life is tough, but its tougher if you are stupid. U.S. generals have thoroughly validated Mr. Waynes words, and their pensions and post-military, corporate-director salaries ought to be confiscated to help pay for the enormous costs U.S. taxpayers are going to pay for having their military mired in demolished cities and responsible for administering, feeding, and rebuilding them as the trophy for the feckless campaign that captures them, but leaves an unbeaten, stronger, and more elusive Islamist insurgent enemy in the field.

Back to the so-called anti-Trump resistance, which, of course, will soon field the wholly-owned, Democratic Party-subsidiary known as the American Peace Movement, which I noticed was utterly silent during gangster-Obamas rule, though that cold-blooded thug murdered far more civilians than all of the covert operations undertaken in the decade prior to his election, probably by a factor of 50-to-1 or more.

What to do? Two courses of action are in order.

A) The first is for President Trump and his team to accelerate their campaign to make good on the goals set and promises made by Trump during the election.

B.) With what Trump already has accomplished, moderate, visible, and tangible advances on the issues above ought to be enough to enlarge his majorities in Congress, and to reelect him in 2020.

Read more here.

Richard C. Young is the editor of Richard C. Youngs Intelligence Report, and a contributing editor to both Richardcyoung.com and Youngresearch.com.

See the original post:

Michael Scheuer: Endall foreign aid, and all immigration …

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Media Kiss Brass as America’s Enemies Grow Stronger – GOPUSA

With massive leaks of classified information, some of them stemming from undiscovered moles in the intelligence community, the media continue treating former officials of the CIA and NSA who have presided over this debacle with honor and respect.

The Business Insider article, 7 things the CIA looks for when recruiting people, is one of the worst examples of this obsequiousness. It is a plug for a book by former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror. Hayden was once photographed with former CIA/NSA analyst Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing classified information that helped our enemies. Snowden posted the photograph on his Twitter page.

Hayden cant be personally faulted for Snowdens betrayal, but the series of leaks from the intelligence community certainly has cast doubt over hiring practices within the CIA and the NSA. Ironically, this is the subject that Business Insider wanted to know more about. In a video interview with the publication, Hayden explains what the Central Intelligence Agency looks for in a candidate. He listed the following characteristics as being attractive in a candidate: a second language, life experience, success, foreign travel and living in a foreign country.

He failed to mention love of country and living a moral lifestyle. He did say that the CIA goes to college fairs looking for candidates, and We go to Arab-American week up in Dearborn, Michigan. He explained, Have a big tent up there where we talk to Americans of Arab descent. We recruit just like any other enterprise.

The recruitment of Muslims during an age of terror involving radical Islamic terrorism is obviously problematic. But the idea of recruiting college students is also questionable. I asked former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer who was behind the most recent leak of classified information from the CIA and he suggested it might be a product of our rotten educational system that offers nothing in civic education or loyalty to the country.

Scheuer, who ran the Osama bin Laden unit and retired in 2004 after a 22-year career, told me in an interview that when he joined the agency he was interrogated over potential background problems such as homosexuality and narcotics. By contrast, Obamas CIA director John Brennan said he joined the agency after voting for the Communist Party USA ticket and got accepted anyway. Under Brennan, Scheuer noted, the CIA held a month-long celebration of LGBT nonsense. He added, Theyve staffed the whole agency with it. The Obama administration definitely salted our security services and military services with people who felt like the Democrats are their protectors. The implication is that these people may be behind the anti-Trump leaks coming out of the intelligence community.

The intelligence community is spared serious scrutiny for the obvious reason that journalists depend on their anonymous sources for news, leads and tips. In this case, the name of the game is taking down Donald Trump. But they could take America down with him.

Hayden wrote his own anti-Trump piece, Donald Trump Is Undermining Intelligence Gathering, for the March 9, 2017 New York Times. Interestingly, his book thanks Vernon Loeb, formerly of The Washington Post, for proposing that Hayden write his book. Loeb was supposed to be his collaborator but took a job with the Houston Chronicle instead. Loeb had covered the CIA and the Pentagon for the Post before becoming its metro editor.

With people like Hayden so clueless about the failures of U.S. intelligence in the age of terror, we have to wonder if the Trump administration will seek major changes and budget cuts in the intelligence community, which spends $50 billion a year.

Since President Trump first expressed reservations about the work of the intelligence community, the problems have only gotten worse. Scheuer told me that the recent CIA leak gives terrorists the ability to evade hacking tools that were used on their methods of communication.

But rather than examine the hiring practices at the CIA and other agencies, the House and Senate intelligence committees are mostly looking at allegations launched by anonymous sources from within the intelligence community against Trump and his Russian connections. These leaks appear to be the fulfillment of what Scheuer alluded tothe revenge of the Democratic staffers and sexual minorities put in place by the Obama administration. They have taken the offensive against Trump in order to protect their privileged positions.

Going beyond this dreadful possibility, the leaks could be a way to divert attention away from moles for Russia or China in the CIA and other agencies. This would be a classic case of communist-style disinformation.

Meanwhile, we can expect more damaging leaks, leading to possible terrorist attacks or blindness regarding the nuclear capabilities or intentions of countries like North Korea and Iran.

If this traitorous conduct within the intelligence community continues, and Congress spends its time on other matters, the only alternative Trump might have is to drastically cut the intelligence communitys $50 billion budget. Perhaps that would get their attention.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

VN:D [1.9.6_1107]

Rating: 9.7/10 (3 votes cast)

Media Kiss Brass as Americas Enemies Grow Stronger, 9.7 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

See the original post here:

Media Kiss Brass as America’s Enemies Grow Stronger – GOPUSA

Fair Usage Law

March 17, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Media Kiss Brass as America’s Enemies Grow Stronger – Accuracy In Media

With massive leaks of classified information, some of them stemming from undiscovered moles in the intelligence community, the media continue treating former officials of the CIA and NSA who have presided over this debacle with honor and respect.

The Business Insider article, 7 things the CIA looks for when recruiting people, is one of the worst examples of this obsequiousness. It is a plug for a book by former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror. Hayden was once photographed with former CIA/NSA analyst Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing classified information that helped our enemies. Snowden posted the photograph on his Twitter page.

Hayden cant be personally faulted for Snowdens betrayal, but the series of leaks from the intelligence community certainly has cast doubt over hiring practices within the CIA and the NSA. Ironically, this is the subject that Business Insider wanted to know more about. In a video interview with the publication, Hayden explains what the Central Intelligence Agency looks for in a candidate. He listed the following characteristics as being attractive in a candidate: a second language, life experience, success, foreign travel and living in a foreign country.

He failed to mention love of country and living a moral lifestyle. He did say that the CIA goes to college fairs looking for candidates, and We go to Arab-American week up in Dearborn, Michigan. He explained, Have a big tent up there where we talk to Americans of Arab descent. We recruit just like any other enterprise.

The recruitment of Muslims during an age of terror involving radical Islamic terrorism is obviously problematic. But the idea of recruiting college students is also questionable. I asked former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer who was behind the most recent leak of classified information from the CIA and he suggested it might be a product of our rotten educational system that offers nothing in civic education or loyalty to the country.

Scheuer, who ran the Osama bin Laden unit and retired in 2004 after a 22-year career, told me in an interview that when he joined the agency he was interrogated over potential background problems such as homosexuality and narcotics. By contrast, Obamas CIA director John Brennan said he joined the agency after voting for the Communist Party USA ticket and got accepted anyway. Under Brennan, Scheuer noted, the CIA held a month-long celebration of LGBT nonsense. He added, Theyve staffed the whole agency with it. The Obama administration definitely salted our security services and military services with people who felt like the Democrats are their protectors. The implication is that these people may be behind the anti-Trump leaks coming out of the intelligence community.

The intelligence community is spared serious scrutiny for the obvious reason that journalists depend on their anonymous sources for news, leads and tips. In this case, the name of the game is taking down Donald Trump. But they could take America down with him.

Hayden wrote his own anti-Trump piece, Donald Trump Is Undermining Intelligence Gathering, for the March 9, 2017 New York Times. Interestingly, his book thanks Vernon Loeb, formerly of The Washington Post, for proposing that Hayden write his book. Loeb was supposed to be his collaborator but took a job with the Houston Chronicle instead. Loeb had covered the CIA and the Pentagon for the Post before becoming its metro editor.

With people like Hayden so clueless about the failures of U.S. intelligence in the age of terror, we have to wonder if the Trump administration will seek major changes and budget cuts in the intelligence community, which spends $50 billion a year.

Since President Trump first expressed reservations about the work of the intelligence community, the problems have only gotten worse. Scheuer told me that the recent CIA leak gives terrorists the ability to evade hacking tools that were used on their methods of communication.

But rather than examine the hiring practices at the CIA and other agencies, the House and Senate intelligence committees are mostly looking at allegations launched by anonymous sources from within the intelligence community against Trump and his Russian connections. These leaks appear to be the fulfillment of what Scheuer alluded tothe revenge of the Democratic staffers and sexual minorities put in place by the Obama administration. They have taken the offensive against Trump in order to protect their privileged positions.

Going beyond this dreadful possibility, the leaks could be a way to divert attention away from moles for Russia or China in the CIA and other agencies. This would be a classic case of communist-style disinformation.

Meanwhile, we can expect more damaging leaks, leading to possible terrorist attacks or blindness regarding the nuclear capabilities or intentions of countries like North Korea and Iran.

If this traitorous conduct within the intelligence community continues, and Congress spends its time on other matters, the only alternative Trump might have is to drastically cut the intelligence communitys $50 billion budget. Perhaps that would get their attention.

Read the original here:

Media Kiss Brass as America’s Enemies Grow Stronger – Accuracy In Media

Fair Usage Law

March 15, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

The Bushes: Unfriends – Sri Lanka Guardian

A lesson from two George Bushes: Never give the elite the benefit of the doubt

by Michael Scheuer

And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject.John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 13 (1)

General revolts and rebellions of a whole people never were encouraged now or at any time. They were always provoked.Edmund Burke, 1777 (2)

( March 7, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sentiment is human weakness that always is an obstacle to clear thinking, or at least it always is in my case. I have always given George H.W. Bush and and George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I thought both were patriots and decent men. The former flew more than 50 combat missions during World War II, and the latter seemed sadly trapped in, and manipulated by, a nest of Neoconservative and Israel-First cretins. Since early in 2016, however, I have come to see how stupid and blinding it is to let sentiment hide the clearly visible truth that the Bushes are not Americas friends.

The elder Bush was a disaster for America, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for a 4-year term. He is the author and first implementer of the totalitarian idea of a New World Order, which began what is now nearly 30 years of constant war for the United States. He laid the ground work for the current confrontation with Russia by greatly expanding NATO and unleashing Western greed to suck anything economically worth having out of the former USSR; he added countries to NATO that are irrelevant to U.S. security but sit right on Russias border; he squandered most of what President Reagan had accomplished; he fought an unnecessary, half-fought, unwon, and Islamist-benefiting war against Iraq; and he ran a reelection campaign against the whore-loving buffoon Bill Clinton that looked like it should have been in one of the lesser Marx Brothers movies. Finally, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Bush refused to endorse Trump, and his closest confidants suggested he preferred Hillary Clinton. Revalidating the McCain Rule that great physical courage does not connote even moderate brainpower or commonsense, it was all downhill for George H.W. Bush after the second Great War ended. Sadly, that decline ended up by delivering the United States to the malevolent hands and minds of Clinton and Obama, as well as to those of his son.

George W. Bush outdid his Dad in terms of negative accomplishments, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for eight years, and even that success was minimal as his performance allowed the presidency of the execrable Obama. The younger Bush picked up his fathers interventionist mantle and waged a effeminate war against al-Qaeda, a genuine enemy of the United States, and a half-witted, small-footprint, losing, and utterly unnecessary war in Iraq, a war whose negative impact on U.S. interests has yet to be fully seen. Then, after his silence during Obamas eight years of military and cultural interventionism, pathological lying and racism, and Constitution-shredding, he joins his Dad, and his clueless yet extraordinarily arrogant bother Jeb, to publicly and clandestinely oppose Trump as Republican presidential contender, Republican candidate, president-elect, and president. Most recently, George W. Bush has been out hawking a book of his paintings and hobnobbing with Michelle Obama and other such mindless, virago-like Democratic women and celebrities, and mindlessly basking in the praise of these racist and authoritarian Amazons who would gladly spit on his grave.

As if this long record of Bush anti-Americanism was not enough, George W. Bush this week took the time to instruct President Trump to avoid adopting an isolationist tendency because it would be dangerous to national security. By avoiding unnecessary interventions and wars and minding its own business, Bush said, the United States creates a vacuum that is generally filled with people who dont share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do. (3)

Well, God bless George the Younger. In his reliably bumbling way, he has allowed Americans to see in the 30 words quoted above that the intent of post-1945 U.S. foreign policy has not been to defend them and their republic but to use the taxes and children of American workers to endlessly intervene abroad to rid the world of people and governments that dont share our ideology and who do not have the same sense [of] freedom we do. Bush is not referring here to the ideology and sense of freedom possessed by Americans, but rather to those that the internationalist/globalist/interventionist elites, like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, most European leaders, Bill Gates, George Soros, and untold numbers of other rich and highly educated people, want to impose on all peoples including Americans so they can rule people as they see fit and without the possibility popular resistance.

Coincidentally, as this piece was being completed, the younger Bushs war buddy, Tony Blair, published a piece in theNew York Timeswhich calls on centrist progressives to hold their ground and defeat the populists and nationalists. Today, the Globalist-shill Blair wrote,

a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left isopen vs. closed.The open-minded see globalization as an opportunitybut one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat. This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics. ..

So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledgethe genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.

The center needs to develop a new policy agenda that shows people they will get support to help them through the change thats happening around them. At the heart of this has to bean alliance between those driving the technological revolution, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and those responsible for public policy in government.At present, there is a chasm of understanding between the two. There will inevitably continue to be a negative impact on jobs from artificial intelligence and big data, but the opportunities to change lives for the better through technology are enormous.

Any new agenda has tofocus on these opportunities for radical change in the way that government and services like health care serve people. This must includehow weeducate, skill and equip our work forces for the future;how we reform tax and welfare systems to encourage more fair distribution of wealth; and how we replenish our nations infrastructures and invest in the communities most harmed by trade and technology. (4)

I added the italics to Blairs words to make the point that the Western and global elites have not a clue about what is going on all around them, and what is increasingly likely to happen to them. For Blair, there is not a mortal divide between those who believe progressive government is the answer, and those who know that progressive government, if fully developed and entrenched, will be the greatest slave master in history. No, Blair sees the divide as being between the open-minded progressives and the close-minded hay seeds who have deserted the cause of social progress and cannot understand that progressives know what is best for them, a prescription that includes unlimited immigration; suppression of religion, nation-states, and nationalism; more intrusive government control of their lives through improved government services; and, naturally, larger taxes and welfare payments to ensure a more fair distribution of wealth, which, as always, means more money given to groups that are generally composed of the scum of the earth and will always vote for those that pledge to keep them forever on the dole.

Throughout history, watching the demise of those who speak about and treat the great mass of people as if they are inferior human beings, and who are then utterly shocked when they find the inferiors bayonets in their bellies, always has been a most enjoyable experience. Blair, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Gates-Soros-Davos billionaires, and the rest of the Globalist clique are blithely and arrogantly striding down a path marked Pointy Ended Road, their trip having been blessed, ironically, by the applause-craving and hell-on-earth-creating Bishop of Rome. They will arrive at that roads dead end, hopefully soon, to find that the great unwashed understand all too well that progressives intend to impose a global tyranny on formerly free peoples, and they will be shocked to find themselves in a fight to their well-merited deaths. No cavalry will come to their aid, of course, because such forces always are composed of the children of the people they mean to rob of their wages and property, and then enslave.

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown Universitys Center for Peace and Security Studies. http://non-intervention.com

See the article here:

The Bushes: Unfriends – Sri Lanka Guardian

Fair Usage Law

March 7, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

US intel agencies deliberately sank Flynn, don’t care about national security ex-CIA officer – RT

Theres a war in Washington Donald Trump is facing a conflict not just with the media, but also with his own intelligence community. Now that the military lobby is infiltrating positions of power, and as the CIA struggles to get its influence back, what kind of shift are we going to see in the corridors of power? Will the intelligence community keep leaking data, or will they rally behind the new leader? We ask former CIA intelligence officer, former head of the CIAs Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Michael Scheuer, veteran CIA officer, welcome to the show. It’s great to have you with us. Sir, American spy agencies are withholding secret information from the president and his administration – and that’s according to sources in Washington cited by The Wall Street Journal. An intelligence official also told the Observer paper that the good stuff is kept from the White House. Are parts of the intelligence community engaged in a battle against the President?

Michael Scheuer: The intelligence community in the U.S. of course, has been completely politicised under two people: first under George Bush by keeping a Democrat named George Tenet in charge of the CIA, and he staffed the agency with pro-Democratic people, and, certainly, Mr. Obama staffed it full of Democratic operatives, people who are indebted to the Democratic party. Immigrants, hispanics, transgender people, homosexuals – people who have more affinity for Democrats than for America or for the Republican party. So, it is a problem, although, I think, probably it’s a bit overblown.

SS: So, you think them being indebted to Bush and Obama because they gave them job at CIA, they would go into a battle against president?

MS: Not so much against Bush, but in favor of George Tenet who is a Democratic party operative. The glow of support for the Democratic party from the people they’ve put in there is very strong one, and the feel for the need their protection from the people who were sent into the agency and into different intelligence community organisations is very strong. But I think that, again, I think it’s overblown, and I think the president will sort it out. He may well have to purge some people of the organisations for being too partisan.

SS: President Trump has accused the FBI and NSA of illegally leaking information to the press, giving out sensitive information like candy – are intelligence agencies deliberately trying to harm Trumps Cabinet?

MS: At least, in the case of General Flynn it seems to be the case, because the only place that information could’ve come from was from NSA collecting or the FBI collecting intelligence. Now, it’s not per se illegal to collect against the American citizen, as long as it’s done passively and what I mean is they were surely collecting against the Russian Ambassador, that’s fair game. But, generally, if they collect what an American is saying, it’s not released and it’s redacted, so, clearly, they meant to do Flynn harm and, unfortunately they did.

SS: The NSA intercepted the calls between Trump officials, then the FBI ordered to collect as much information as possible – according to the New York Times once again. Now are American intelligence agencies just spying on their own administration?

MS: I think, it’s probably a mistake to take anything the NYT says with any bid of faith in what they’re saying. They’re clearly out to destroy this presidency, it’s only a month old, and I think the President can handle the press, simply by going over their head in news conferences and twitter and videos and things like that. The real problem, though, is cleaning out the government of Democratic apparatchiks and people who are more inclined to want to cooperate with the world rather than protecting America first.

SS:Trump is saying that the leakers are going to pay a big price. The Justice Department is already looking into these leaks. Is it possible to identify the leakers in this case – and what happens to them if they are uncovered?

MS: The tenets of the espionage law certainly cover that, as they should’ve covered Mrs. Clinton and hopefully they still will. Can they find them? There’s a good chance they can find them. The problem we usually have is that they don’t prosecute. But if they prosecuted a few people, I think that will persuade others not to do this. Certainly, it’s a crime, certainly it’s a blow against U.S. security. A lot of these people don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between their duty to their country and their duty to their political party.

SS:The New York Times, and the Washington Post, CNN have all reported on Trumps campaign contacts with Russian officials – nevertheless theres been no evidence, like we’ve said so far, so far of the Trump team colluding with Moscow. The FBI has been investigating a scandalous Russia dossier for months but hasnt been able to confirm any of the explosive claims – why does this Russia issue continue to be pedaled, if the allegations are just not adding up?

MS: Russia is a big boogeyman for the U.S., always has been. You have to remember that people who run our foreign policy, the neoconservatives – not only they are extremely pro-Israel to the point where they should be members of Knesset, but they join the Israelis in many ways in their hatred for Russians, and so, it’s just a matter of hate. I think, Mr. Trump won the day already with central part of the United States, where most working people live, when he said “I will try to get along with Russia and Mr. Putin. I see no reason for the first step to be animosity” – which seems to be fairly liberal approach to deal with superpower. I don’t know what more to say than that. Russia, there’s a gene in the American character, because of the Cold War that immediately, it’s hackles up once the word “Russia” is mentioned. If Putin and Trump can smooth things over and work, if not closely, at least..

SS: Yeah, I mean, Obamas CIA Director John Brennan warned Trump against embracing Russia, saying the President does not understand the threat Moscow poses – why is mending ties with Russia considered to be a threat among both the Republican and Democrat establishment?

MS: The Republicans, because they’re run by the neoconservatives and the Israeli first lobby in this country and they will always be excessively pro-Israeli and excessively anti-Russian, that’s no way around that until people like Senator Graham and Senator McCain either pass away or retire. Mr. Brennan, of course, is a Democratic apparatchik, more and more you read that he’s probably in the pay of the Saudis, which would not surprise me… I tend to think that he was just playing politics, there seems to be some kind of a plan to make the operation of the presidency under Mr. Trump impossible, by the Democrats, by the New York Times, by some members of the government, the intelligence community. Mr. Trump has a big hill to climb now.

SS: Trumps top officials arent that much in favour of closer ties between Moscow and Washington – whos going to have the final say in this regard, the president, or his cabinet? What’s your take?

MS: Mr. Trump is going to have the final say, mam. I think, if we’ve heard anything in the past two years is that Mr. Trump has the way – he listens, he talks to very important and very respected, very knowledgeable people, and he makes his own decision. We’ve seen, if he falls out with someone, as in the case of General Flynn, who got fired not for what he did but for trying to cover it up or trying to lie about it – Trump will carry the day. I think, it’s so important for foreigners to realise that the great bulk of the American public, notwithstanding what the New York Post and the Washington Times and CNN and all those other people say, the bulk of the American people actually enjoys seeing a president make a decision, actually, like he has a job to do, and not just pontificate about his own personal ideas.

SS: While its the Russians who are blamed for all US security breaches lately – Ex-Navy officer Hal Martin – the NSA contractor dubbed the second Snowden – has been arrested for major theft of govt data. Martin stole 50 thousand gigabytes of information which he openly stored in his home, he had classified papers lying around in his car.. How did the NSA miss this massive breach, once again?

MS: Well, again, after 911 the intelligence community in the U.S. expanded to the extremely large extent, and they subcontracted vetting processes, clearance processes to companies that actually didn’t do a very good job about it. So, Snowden was able to do what he did, and he got away, he got to Russia and he helped the Russians. He should certainly be brought home and punished for that, but there certainly was the security breakdown on our side, also.

SS: Martin worked for the same NSA contractor Snowden did and obviously the NSA didnt find about the security breach right away – does that mean the government may simply be unaware of other violations in its system?

MS: I think, without a doubt. When you choose not to use your military to win wars that you’re involved in – as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we didn’t a tenth… the world didn’t see a tenth or a twentieth of American military power applied. The default position is to go to the intelligence agencies to do things that intelligence agencies are not equipped to do, whether it’s military operations or law enforcement operation. The result of that default was to expand the intelligence community and bloat it, and they certainly were not prepared for the security side of that expansion.

SS: In his final days in office Obama has dramatically expanded the reach of American government surveillance – giving 17 agencies the right to spy on citizens. Why did he choose to leave this kind of power to the Trump administration last minute? Do you support the move?

MS: I think he probably realises that because of his 8 years in power, the situation inside the U.S., the law enforcement situation and terrorism situation is out of control, as it is in Europe. He wanted to, I don’t know, wanted to expand these capabilities… but Trump will get blamed for using them. I think you’ve seen that if Trump does something that Obama did, no one knows that Obama did it, like the immigration ban – he followed Obama’s example. So Obama, here, in the U.S., is a useless man who accomplished nothing, and, indeed hurt the U.S., but he’s treated in a some ways as a saint. Mr. Trump is going to have to just man up and shoulder that theme. Again, though, if you don’t win your war with your military, with your conventional forces, you must rely on the intelligence community, and the more the intelligence community is relied on, the more tools it needs, and therefore, this kind of surveillance will become necessary, as someone has to defend the Republic.

SS: As he was taking office there were reports – once again, in the New York Times – that Trump was planning to restructure the intelligence community – because its become too bloated and politicised – does it need this overhaul?

MS: Yes, it does. It is way too big and there’s too few qualified people from the intelligence community of this size in the U.S.. Our education system has so broken down that we don’t train people to love their country anymore, we don’t teach them American history. We teach them not to be the U.S. citizens but citizens of the world, and so, they lack, I think, in many cases a killer instinct which is key in the intelligence work and again, its especially key when your leaders are too cowardly to apply military force against enemies that threaten the country.

SS: Obama has loosened political oversight over the CIA – at the same time, with the government officials expecting the agency to support their political ideas – do you think the agency needs more control from the elected government or can it be trusted to be left alone?

MS: The Agency, mam… one of the biggest things that I have been surprised by, is the idea that Agency is ever left alone. The Agency is palsied by lawyers, you can barely go down the hall to use men’s room without permission from a lawyer. What you need most of all is for people to stop appointing party apparatchicks, like John Brennan, like Mike Morell, like George Tenet, to position where they can create a situation that’s more like a social experiment – how much can we make this agency diverse and multicultural rather than how can we make this Agency an instrument for successfully promoting and supporting American foreign policy.

SS: An example of the way the CIA politicised intelligence is for example the false evidence it presented to launch the Iraq war. If the intelligence is compiled according to policy, and not the other way around, does this mean the White House acts on the intelligence it wants to hear, not on what is actually happening?

MS:To be fair, mam, I think the entire world thought that there were some kind of WMDs in Iraq. The problem I had with the whole process is that most of the information about WMDs in Iraq came from people who wanted to overthrow Saddam but couldn’t do it by themselves. I think the Agency has just come out of working in four different resistance situations – Nicaragua and Namibia, Cambodia and Afghanistan – and the one thing you learn very quickly was unless you could corroborate from other sources what the resistance was telling you, you would end up acting on false information, and I think, that’s largely what’s happened here. The information wasn’t good and George Bush and Dick Cheney were dying to go to war with Iraq, event to extent of ignoring the main enemy, which was then Al-Qaeda and now it’s the Islamic State.

SS:Yeah, but my question is – all of this, does this still mean that the White House acts on the intelligence it wants to hear, not what’s really going on?

MS: I can’t tell you, mam, under Mr. Trump how that will work out, but the one thing I did see, I went to work under Reagan administration, and ended up under Bush’s’ administration, the Junior Bush, the second Bush, and what I saw was the general politicisation of the American foreign policy-making, national security policy, to bend the information to fit the political needs of the President at the time. Not killing Osama Bin Laden, for example, was purely a political decision, so mr. Clinton wouldn’t look bad if it went wrong… I think it’s a process that needs to be undone. I’m not smart enough to know how to do that, but what you’re looking at is not a concern in American foreign policy for the protection of the Republican, but for the protection of the President.

SS: The CIA conducts its own covert military operations, it operates a targeted killing programme – and sometimes its actions overlap with those of the Pentagon. In Syria the different CIA-backed and Pentagon-backed rebels groups ended up fighting each other. Is there a competition between the military and the intelligence – or can the two operate as a united front?

MS: There’s probably some competition to the extent that CIA is doing military activities, that they have been ordered to do, which normally would fall to the military. So, there’s probably, some resentment on part of the military, but the military also, in a lot of cases, doesn’t want to do these things. I doesn’t want to go after people and capture them, it doesn’t want to do the waterboarding, it doesn’t want to do other kinds of activities, that unfortunately, are necessary in this day and age. The other point that I would make is that the American military is an extraordinarily slow and cumbersome organisation. When we had to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 for example, the CIA was on the ground, had built tents, had the coffee warmed, before any military got there.

SS: While the military lobbies for perpetual war, can Trumps ideas of less American involvement and making deals with other powers will outweigh the hawkish opposition?

MS: I certainly hope so, mam. I think, Mr. Trump has a great opportunity to let Mr. Putin, if he’d like to, to have to deal with the Arabs for the next 50 years, I think that would be wonderful thing, for example. Whether he can pull it off or not – I don’t know. The American Congress is really owned, more or less, by the Israelis, less by the Israelis than by Jewish American citizens here in the U.S. They say, you know, “jump”, and the American Congress almost to a person says: “how high?”. That’s a very hard nut to crack. I think Mr. Trump needs to do that, or we will be engaged in endless and ultimately bankrupting wars in the Middle East for no purpose. It does not matter to the U.S. for example, who rules in Kabul. It does matter to Russia, I think, but it doesn’t matter for us.

SS:You believe the conflict in Syria is one that US has no interest in – do you think the new administration will give up its ambitions in the Syrian campaign?

MS: Do I think or do I hope? I certainly hope they do, I certainly think any common sense review of what’s going on in Syria – I think that war is going to be 6 years old next month? The only Americans who have been killed have been people who wanted to be on the ground, messing around on the battlefield, whether they were NGO people or journalists, and a few U.S. soldiers because Obama re-intervened there. It doesn’t matter for us who rules in Damascus or in Baghdad. Let the parts fall where they may. Ultimately, that’s heading towards a Sunni-Shia war which could do nothing but benefit the U.S.

SS: America is conducting anti-terror campaigns in Yemen, in Libya, its aiding troops in Iraq, it’s still present in Afghanistan – you want the US to pull out, end its interventions, but is it that easy? I mean, can the US just leave Afghanistan and have the Taliban take over, doesnt it have a responsibility to stay there now?

MS: No. We have no responsibility for anything. Our responsibility was to destroy the people that attacked us in 9/11 – Osama Bin Laden is dead, Al-Qaeda is at least dormant or semi-dormant for the moment. We always have the power to go back and do it again and do it the right way, which is overwhelming it with an indiscriminate military force. Right now, what we’ve tried to do is impose values, sordid Western values on Afghans, who are Muslims, and sincere Muslims, and want no part of it. It’s a never-ending battle. We could stay there forever and we would never change a thing in Afghanistan. That’s just the beginning of wisdom for one part of the country. I think it would apply to Yemen or any other Muslim country. We have nothing to offer that they want. The only way we can impose it is by a bayonet.

SS: The Washington-Tehran track is heating up right now. Trumps team wants a review of the nuclear deal, its imposing new restrictions, while Tehran is growing more defiant. How far can these tensions spike? Is a US-Iran military conflict now in the cards once again?

MS: It certainly sounds like it does. I hope it isn’t. The Iranians are no threat to the U.S., they are threat to Israel, they are a threat to the Saudis – let the regional powers settle their problem. There’s 1.6 billion Muslims, a small portion of that are Shia – if the Sunnis can’t defend themselves against the enemy that’s infinitesimally smaller than they are, then they deserve to get defeated. But, who cares who rules in Tehran? Even if they have a nuclear weapon, which they will get, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t from their perspective – they are still not going to represent the power that Russia, Great Britain or the U.S. represents. They still get smashed in any attempt to take us on in any meaningful way.

SS: Now, I know that your book, your analysis has been quoted by Bin Laden himself, as well as ISIS – is this strange kind of acknowledgement flatter you or makes you uneasy?

MS: No, it flatters me in a sense that they see American who understands and listens to what they say. Osama Bin Laden would’ve been a great western politician in a sense that he stayed on message. He basically said “we don’t give a damn how you treat your women, what your women wear, whether you drink whiskey, if you vote, if you have freedoms or liberties – we want you to stop intervening in our country”, and that’s what I wrote. I wrote that in 1999, the Agency suppressed it for 2 years, 2,5 years, it was published in 2002, I think. It was right then, it is right now. As long as we intervene, we are the glue that holds together the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the rest of them. I’m not sure they would stop fighting us entirely, but it would be much-much more manageable and also they would turn to their other enemies – the tyrannical Arab states, the Israelis, other people in the region. And it’s better for those people to get killed than for Americans to be attacked and killed.

SS: Alright. Mr. Scheuer, thank you for this wonderful interview, we were talking to Michael Scheuer, veteran CIA officer, who used to head the Agency’s Bin Laden unit, discussing the CIA’s role in the American power balance and its influence on a country’s politics. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

Read more:

US intel agencies deliberately sank Flynn, don’t care about national security ex-CIA officer – RT

Fair Usage Law

February 28, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Why Do So Many Americans Fear Muslims? Decades of Denial About America’s Role in the World. – The Intercept

Theres been lotsofattention-grabbing opposition to Trumps Muslim ban executive order, from demonstrations to court orders. But polls make it clearpublic opinion ismuch more mixed.Standard phone polls show small majorities opposed, while web and automated polls find small majorities continue to support it.

What surprises me about the poll results isnt that lots of Americans like the ban but thatso manyAmericans dont. Regular people have lives to lead and cant investigate complicated issues in detail. Instead they usually take their cues from leaders they trust.Andgiven what politicians across the U.S. political spectrum say about terrorism, Trumps executive ordermakes perfect sense. There are literally no national-level Americanpoliticians telling a story that would help ordinary people understand why Trumps goalsare both horrendously counterproductive and morally vile.

Think of it this way:

On February 13, 1991 during the first Gulf War, the U.S. dropped two laser-guided bombs on the Amiriyah public air raid shelter in Baghdad. More than400 Iraqi civilians were incinerated or boiled alive. For years afterward visitors to a memorial there wouldmeet a woman with eight children who had died during the bombing; she was living in the ruined shelter because she could not bear to be anywhere else.

Now, imagine that immediately after the bombing Saddam Hussein had delivered a speech on IraqiTV in which he plaintively asked Why do they hate us? without ever mentioning the fact that Iraq was occupying Kuwait. And even Saddams political opponents would only mumble that this is a complicated issue. And most Iraqis had no idea that their country had invaded Kuwait, and that there were extensive United Nation resolutions and speeches by George H.W. Bush explaining the U.S.-led coalitions rationale for attacking Iraq in response. And that the few Iraqis who suggested there might be some kind of relationshipbetween Husseins invasion of Kuwait and the Amiriyah bombing were shouted down by politicians saying these Iraq-hating radicals obviously believed that Americas slaughter of 400 people wasjustified.

If that had happened, wed immediately recognize that Iraqi political culture was completely insane, and that it would cause them to behave in dangerously nutty ways. But thats exactly what U.S. political culture is like.

Interiors from a building in Amiriya district, a residential area on Baghdads western outskirts, after an Allied bombing on an air raid shelter by US bombers, Gulf War, Feb. 14 1991.

Photo: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

In an interviewlast Marchwith Anderson Cooper, Donald Trump tried to puzzle out whats behindthe terrorism directed at the U.S. I think Islam hates us, Trump learnedly opined. Theres a tremendous hatred there, weve got to get to the bottom of it.

In Islam itself? asked Cooper. Trump responded, Youre going to have to figure that out. Youll get another Pulitzer.

During Trumps speech at the CIA right after his inauguration, he expressed the same bewilderment. Radical Islamic terrorism,pondered Trump. This is something nobody can even understand.

John F. Kelly, now Trumps head of the Department of Homeland Security, is similarly perplexed,saying in a 2013 speechthat I dont know why they hate us, and I frankly dont care, but they do hate us and are driven irrationally to our destruction.

Say what you want about the tenets of this worldview, but at least its an internally consistent ethos: Were surrounded by lunatics who want to murder us for reasons that are totally inscrutable to rational people like us but obviously have something to do with them being Muslims.

Meanwhile, in private, the non-crazy members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment arent confusedat all. They understand quite well that Islamist terrorism is almost wholly blowback from the foreign policy theyve designed.

Richard Shultz, a professor at Tufts whose career has long been intertwined with the national security state,has writtenthat A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as a small price to pay for being a superpower. That small price, of course, is the deaths of regular Americans, and is apparently well worth it.

The 9/11 Commission reportquietly acknowledged,hundreds of pages in, that Americas policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. A senior official in the George W. Bush administration later put it more bluntlyto Esquire: That without the post-Gulf War sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden might still be redecorating mosques and boring friends with stories of his mujahideen days in the Khyber Pass.

Intelligence professionals were quite aware that an invasion of Iraq would take the conditions that led to 9/11 and make them far worse. The British Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war published aFebruary, 2003 assessmentby British intelligence of the consequences of an invasion of Iraq, which would occur one month later. The threat from Al Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq, the UKs Joint Intelligence Committee told Tony Blair, and the worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly.

The CIA had the same perspective. Michael Scheuer, who for several years ran the section of the Agency that tracked bin Laden,wrote in 2004that U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Ladens only indispensable ally.

For its part, the Defense Departments Science Board concluded in a2004 reportthat Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

A Palestinian woman reacts amid destroyed buildings in the northern district of Beit Hanun in the Gaza Strip during a humanitarian truce on July 26, 2014.

Photo: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images

When Barack Obamatook office, he had two choices.

First, he could tell the truth: That the U.S. has acted with extraordinary brutality in the Middle East, that this had been the main motivation for most Islamist terrorism against us, and if we continued the same foreign policy Americans would be killed indefinitelyin intermittent attacks. Then we could have had an open, informed debate about whether we like our foreign policy enough to die for it.

Second, Obama could continue trying to run the Middle Eastwithout public input, but in a more rational way than the Bush administration.

Obviously he went with the second choice, which demanded several different forms of political correctness.

Most importantly, Obama pretended that the U.S. has never done anything truly wrong to others, and can enjoy the benefits of power without any costs. This is the most pernicious and common form of political correctness, but is never called that because the most powerful people in America love it.

But Obama also engaged in something more akin to whatsgenerally called political correctness, by contendingthat Islam hasnothingto do with terrorism. But it does just not in the way that Frank Gaffney and Pamela Geller would tell you.

Religion and nationalism have always been similar phenomena, and Islam sometimes functions as a formof nationalism. Andlike all nationalisms, it has a crazy, vicious right wing thats empowered by outside attacks on members of the nation. The right loves to jeer at Obama forcalling Islama religion of peace, and they should not because Islam specifically isnt a religion of peace but because there is really no such thing, just as there is no nationalism of peace. Its true religions and nationalism canbring out the best in people, but they also bring out the worst (sometimes in the same person for the same reasons).

But Obama could never say anything like that, because he knew the U.S. needs the governments of Muslim-majority countrieslike Saudi Arabia and Egypt to keep the rest of the Middle Eastin line.

This amalgam of political correctness made it impossible for the Obama administration ever to tell a story about terrorism that made any sense. For instance, in his2009 speech in Cairo, he declared, It is easier to blame others than to look inward and then went on to demonstrate that truism.

His description of wrongs done by the U.S. was vague to the point of meaninglessness: tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims. Also, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.

Obama then explained that Violent extremists have exploited these tensions. So 19 people were motivated to fly jetliners into buildings by tensions? If thats the only story that non-Muslim Americans hear, theyllrationally be terrified of Islam.

In 2010, Obamas counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, emitted a similar bland puree of words at a press conference whenquestioned by Helen Thomasabout Umar FaroukAbdulmutallab, the failedunderwear bomber. Their exchange went like this:

THOMAS: And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.

BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [theyre] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.

THOMAS: And youre saying its because of religion?

BRENNAN: Im saying its because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.

THOMAS: Why?

BRENNAN: I think this is a, uh, long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

At his sentencing, Abdulmutallabexplained his motivationin less time than it took Brennan to say there wasntenough time to explain:

[I pledged] to attack the United States in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants.

To be fair, there is one situation in whichAmerican officials have lost the mushmouth and drawn a direct connection between a country killing Mideastern civilians and terrorist retaliation: when that country is Russia. William Burns, formerly Obamas Deputy Secretary of State, recently and accurately proclaimed that Russias bloody role in Syria makes the terrorist threat far worse. John Kirby, an Obama State Department spokesman, warned that Russias brutalization of Syria would lead toattacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities.

Russias response to our friendly observation was about the same as ours when Russia told us before the invasion of Iraq that it would cause a wave of terror.

Trump supporters demonstrate against a ruling by a federal judge in Seattle that grants a nationwide temporary restraining order against the presidential order to ban travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, at Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport on February 4, 2017 in Los Angeles, California.

Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

That brings us back to President Trump and his executive order on immigration.

Trumps story about why its necessary is, factually speaking, garbage. But a normal human being can at least understand it and its moral: These incomprehensible foreigners are all potential psychotics, weve got to keep them out. Under these circumstances, who cares that no one from any of these seven countries has killed any Americans yet? Theyre all part of a huge morass of ticking time bombs.

By contrast, the Democratic, liberal perspective laid out by Obama makes no sense at all. Weve never done anything particularly bad in the Middle East, yet some people over there want to come here and kill us because theyve been exploited by violent extremists whove perverted Islam and gotta run, theres no time to explain.

Regular people couldsense that anyone mouthing this kind of gibberishwashiding something, even if they didnt realize that Obama was trying to keep the U.S. empire running rather than concealing his secret faith inIslam.

And because a coherentnarrative always beats the complete absence of astory, no one should be surprised that many Americans find Trumps fantasy of inexplicable Muslim hatredpersuasive. The only way to conclusively beat it will be with a coherent, complicated, true story like this:

America has done hideous things to countries across the Middle Eastfor decades, such as bomb a civilian air raid shelter, burning the silhouette of a mother trying to protect her baby onto its walls. It was inevitable that some people would seek revenge. This doesnt mean that their brutality is justified, any more than the slaughter at Amiriyah was justified by Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait. It just means that humans are humans, violence begets violence, and Americans will always be in danger unless we change our foreign policy.

We must welcome immigrantsfrom the Middle Eastboth for moral and pragmatic reasons. Morally, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is what sent the region spiraling into catastrophe; only psychopaths set someones home on fire and then lock them inside. There are already three million Muslim American citizens. If the government keeps bombing the Middle Eastwhile making it clear that it genuinely hates Muslims, thatwill onlyspur to action more troubled weirdos likeOmar Mateen who was born in Queens, a few miles away from Donald Trumps childhood home.

And wed better get started with this story soon, because it may not be true forever. Israel has done an exemplary job turning a solvable, straightforward fight over land into a religious war that may no longer have any solution. Were making similar strides in transforming a conflict that was 90 percent political, where there can be compromise, into a religious conflict where there cant.

This can be seen, on the one hand, in ISIS propaganda. Bin Laden generally just talked about kicking the U.S. out of the Middle East and said thingslike, Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe. The ISIS magazine Dabiq cheerfully tells usthat We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.

On the other hand, Donald Trump is president of the United States and Steve Bannon is his chief strategist. Bannon straightforwardly believes, as he told a conference at the Vatican in 2014, that were in a war of immense proportions thats part of the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam. To win, Bannon says, we must form the church militant an archaic term for the Christian church on earth regarded as engaged in a constant warfare against its enemies, the powers of evil.

So its quite possible ISIS and the Trump administration can successfully collaborate on getting what they both want: a totally unnecessary, civilizational war. To stop them we have to end ourtruckling equivocation about terrorism, and start telling the truth while theres still time.

Top Photo: During a memorial service in Baghdad, Iraqis gather around a bomb hole in the ceiling of the Al-Amariya shelter in 2003, where more than 400 people were killed in a U.S.-led missile attack during the Gulf War. Iraqis opened a new memorial center outside the Al-Amariya shelter to mark the 12 year anniversary of the attack.

The rest is here:

Why Do So Many Americans Fear Muslims? Decades of Denial About America’s Role in the World. – The Intercept

Fair Usage Law

February 18, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Al-Qaeda Is Already Exploiting Trump’s Hawkish Foreign Policy to Help Recruit – AlterNet

Photo Credit: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula propaganda outlet Al-Malahem

Al-Qaeda’s most extreme branch is using the Trump administration’s bloody first military raid in order to recruit more fighters. The leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is based in Yemen, released an audio recording in which he called President Trump a “fool,” according to the Associated Press.

“The White House’s new fool has received a painful blow at your hands in his first outing on your land,” proclaimed Qassim al-Rimi, the head of the extremist group.

Al-Rimi said the U.S. raid killed 25 people, including 11 women and children. (Media reportsclaim even higher numbers of casualties.) The U.S. government identified a Navy SEAL who lost his life, William Ryan Owens, and al-Rimi claimed more were wounded or killed.

Among the civilian victimswas 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki, the daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and extremist propagandist with links to al-Qaeda who was killed in an Obama administration drone strike in Yemen in 2011. Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was also a U.S. citizen, was killed in a drone attack two weeks after his father.

The Trump administration’s first raid “caused more anger and hatred toward America,” explained a Yemeni government employee quoted in the Chicago Tribune. “America has no right to carry out any military action in our country,” he added. “This is a serious violation for our country’s sovereignty and is totally unacceptable.”

The attack has fueled anger at the U.S. throughout Yemen, where for nearly two years, the U.S. has supported a destructive Saudi bombing campaign that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people and plunged the poorest country in the Middle East intofamine.

This catastrophic U.S.-backed war has likewise amounted to a shot of adrenaline for AQAP, empowering and enrichening it after a 14-year covert U.S. drone war against the extremist group. The Trump administration, with its extremeanti-Muslim prejudices, has only continued to ramp up military intervention in Yemen, in alliance with Saudi Arabia.

AQAP is widely recognized as one of the most dangerous affiliates of the global Salafi jihadist organization. It claimed credit for the January 2015 attack on the office of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The latest AQAP propaganda audio recording is just one of the many ways in which the U.S.’s so-called war on terror has actually helped strengthen the extremist groups it purports to be fighting. Al-Qaeda has long openly used U.S. military atrocities for recruitment purposes. It taps into widespread anger at bellicose American foreign policy to attract militants to its violent sectarian cause.

In the September 2011 issue of its propaganda magazine Inspire, AQAP acknowledged, “America’s subtle hatred for Islam drastically helps us.” (This is reminiscent of ISIS propaganda in which the genocidal group explicitly says it hopes to destroythe “Grayzone,” or space in which Muslims are accepted in Western societies.)

The Inspire issue marked the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which it described as “the greatest operation in the history of mankind.” AQAPrejoiced at how the multi-trillion-dollar costs of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have exacerbated the government deficit and hurt the American economy. The extremist group also boasted that U.S. wars in the Middle East had essentially played into the hands of al-Qaeda kingpin Osama bin Laden. Its magazine quoted Michael Scheuer, a former CIA intelligence officer turned staunch critic of the war on terror, who recalled, “Basically Bin Ladin said jump and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said how high?”

Anti-Iranian sentiment and sectarian bigotry against the Shia sect of Islam also pervades AQAP’s propaganda. The Trump administration has ramped up tensionagainst Shia-majority Iran, Sunni extremists’ biggest enemy, and is pushing for war with the major Middle Eastern power.

A hyper-belligerent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, like that of former President George W. Bush, threatens to further strengthen Salafi jihadist groups in the region. President Trump has made every indication that he will continue down this path.

Ben Norton is a reporter for AlterNet’s Grayzone Project. You can follow him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

See the original post:

Al-Qaeda Is Already Exploiting Trump’s Hawkish Foreign Policy to Help Recruit – AlterNet

Fair Usage Law

February 15, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Will Latest Foreign Policy Executive Orders Drive the Country to More War? – Tenth Amendment Center

In the wee hours of the morning on Nov 9, 2016, as the returns from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania indicated a Trump victory, a wave of shock crashed over American politics. Then there was a second wave of astonishment in the wake that election night victory: the realization all the power the political left and right spent years ceding to the presidency to shape the American economy, culture, and politics might now turn on them.

One such vested power is the authority to send Americans into war zones.

It has been rumored that President Trump will establish safe zones in Syria; he intimated as much during his campaign. A draft of an executive order establishing safe zones was released a few weeks ago:

Establishment of Safe Zones to Protect Vulnerable Syrian Populations. Pursuant to the cessation of refugee processing for Syrian nationals, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, is directed within 90 days of the date of this order to produce a plan to provide safe areas in Syria and in the surrounding region in which Syrian nationals displaced from their homeland can await firm settlement, such as repatriation or potential third-country resettlement.

Although that provision was removed from the final EO Trump signed relating to refugees, it seems unlikely the idea is dead and it certainly wasnt excluded because the president and his advisors decided it was outside of executive authority.

The fact that such an executive order was even entertained raises two immediate concerns.

First, it creates opportunities for mistakes that only increase the likelihood of war with Syria, the various factions in the region, and other countries that have a stake in Syrias future. Second, that any president can send Americans into a war zone with very little oversight is a terrible indication of how much extra-constitutional power has been ceded to the president.

Safe zones increase the opportunities for mistakes that can lead to larger wars.

Yet, the American officials advocating for safe zones fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Americas problems with Middle Eastern countries. According to Dr. Michael Scheuer an expert on the Middle and the former CIA analyst once responsible for following Osama Bin Laden there are six answers to the question Why do they hate us?

Summarily, the problem is one of regional conflict and American intervention. Safe zones will not deal with the sources of the problem because a lack of safe zones isnt the problem. Setting up safe zones will only perpetuate the violence. What if an American plane or ground troop kills a Syrian civilian or a foreign soldier? It becomes more likely that locals, the Syrian government, or the foreign government will respond by escalating attacks on Americans. This will increase an American willingness to do something, like increasing an American military presence and activities.

An American safe zone in Syria cannot account for the multitude of factors that are leading to violence in Syria.

Stated differently, when all decisions are left up to one person, the likelihood of misdiagnosing the problem and implementing the wrong remedy are increased.

Let us put this scenario into economic terms. If a government raises the minimum wage above the market clearing price, it will, by the laws of economics, lead to unemployment. In response to calls to do something about the unemployment, the government can only raise taxes, borrow money, or print money. Any of these three responses will be ruinous to an economy; people will then call for more government intervention. The government intervention perpetuates more intervention.

The two scenarios above both show the dangers of government intervention. In both cases, the central planners suffer from the Hayekian Knowledge Problem. Very simply, the knowledge problem means that one person or a group of people cannot possibly know all the factors that shape all the interactions in society. Its best to leave the decisions to the individuals or groups who are most familiar with the situation.

Applying this to our question of executive orders and safe zones, the people and government of Syria should be the ones to discover the solution to their problems rather than outsiders imposing artificial boundaries. (NB: the United States government has actually played a role in destabilizing the Syrian government. So, an immediate military extrication from Syria is an important first step).

The second concern is that a president thinks he is empowered to sign such a sweeping executive order because Congress has allowed so much power to be amassed by one office.

Fifteen years after Congress voted to give President Bush an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against those responsible for 9/11, that authority has never been revisited. Presidents Bush, Obama, and now Trump will be using that wide-ranging authority. While a handful of members of Congress made efforts to reexamine the AUMF, there is very little interest in taking a stand. This is rightly a congressional prerogative, but while the Congress dithers the presidential powers and the use of executive orders will grow.

If Congress will not act to defend the constitution then the states must step in. The state legislatures must do so even contrary of the federal governments wishes how else is the Tenth Amendment to be enforced?

P.A. Deacon is a freelance blogger from Washington D.C.

More:

Will Latest Foreign Policy Executive Orders Drive the Country to More War? – Tenth Amendment Center

Fair Usage Law

February 13, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – The Daily Beast

Anybody who thinks the Obama years have been uniquely dominated by Teh Crazy should give a few minutes attention to the career of Michael Scheuer, once one of the most prominent critics of the Bush administrations war on terror. Scheuers career reached its terminal nadir last week, when he published a column endorsing an assassination of President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron. In the modern media environment, its pretty hard to go too far. Advocacy of murder, however, does cross one of the last remaining lines. These words from the same column cross another: That Eric Holder and Barack Obama have not been impeached, moreover, suggests that the impeachment provisions of the Constitution are a dead letter; that they apply only to individuals named Nixon; or that they do not apply to black Americans supported by such towering giants of fatuousness as Oprah, Chris Matthews, Fareed Zakaria, Piers Morgan, and Hillary Clinton and her motley band of Viragos. I dont expect we will be hearing much more in future from the former CBS News analyst, bestselling author, and CIA officer. Yet Scheuer was not significantly less nuts during his hour of celebrity than he is today. In the pages of the book that made him famous, he revealed himself as a paranoid character, strongly tinged with anti-Semitism. Back in 2004, however, none of that mattered. Here was a figure with plausible national-security credentials (hed worked at the CIAs bin Laden desk!) who argued that the Iraq War was a debacle, that the Afghanistan War was a mistake. Just as any stick will do to beat a dog, so any criticism would do against Bush. Those were the days when the U.S. was criticized both for overthrowing authoritarian rulers and for propping them up, for imposing its values on others and for caring only about oiloften by the same person, sometimes in the same sentence. In that moment of maximum media attention to any criticism, however self-contradictory, Scheuer released his book Imperial Hubris, under an anonymous byline, carrying only the information that the author was a senior official at the CIA. The book instantly gained immense attention and praise. It helped that Scheuer had previously released (also anonymously) a more workmanlike book about al Qaedas ideology. Imperial Hubris was anything but workmanlike. It was positively coruscating, in ways that thrilled and amazed reviewersand gained the book almost two months on the New York Times bestseller list. Anonymity could not last long under such circumstances. Soon Scheuer was out of the CIA and on TV, amplifying the argument of his book. Osama bin Laden, Scheuer contended, was a hugely popular figure in the Muslim world: the most respected, loved, romantic, charismatic, and perhaps able figure in the last 150 years of Islamic history. Scheuer insisted that bin Ladens views were shared by a large percentage of the worlds Muslims across the political spectrum. He utterly rejected the Bush administrations claim that the United States was not at war with Islam. America, he wrote, must recognize that much of Islam is fighting us, and more is leaning that way. The right way to think about al Qaeda, wrote Scheuer in 2004, was as a global Islamic insurgency. Suppressing so widely backed an insurgency would demand slaughter on an almost unimaginable scale: If U.S. leaders truly believed that the country is at war with bin Laden and the Islamists, they would dump the terminally adolescent bureaucrats and their threat matrix and tell the voters that war brings repeated and at times grievous defeats as well as victories, and proceed with relentless, brutal, and yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us, or so mutilate their forces, supporting populations, and physical infrastructure that they recognize continued war-making on their part is futile. Fortunately, continued the 2004 Scheuer, such violence was unnecessary because there existed a viable alternative policy: figure out what the terrorists want, and give it to them. First, the end of all U.S. aid to Israel, the elimination of the Jewish state, and in its stead the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state. Second, the withdrawal of all U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian peninsulaa shift of most units from Saudi Arabia to Qatar fools no Muslims and will not cut the mustardand all Muslim territory. Third, the end of all U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fourth, the end of U.S. support for, and acquiescence in, the oppression of Muslims by the Chinese, Russian, Indian, and other governments. Fifth, restoration of full Muslim control over the Islamic world’s energy resources and a return to market prices [sic], ending the impoverishment of Muslims caused by oil prices set by Arab regimes to placate the West. Sixth, the replacement of U.S.-protected Muslim regimes that do not govern according to Islam by regimes that do. In the context of 2004, that kind of talk passed for hard-headed thinking. Scheuer aired his views first to CBS News, then on Fox News when his CBS contract lapsed. The longer he remained in the public eye, the more he emphasized one particular theme in the book that made him famous: that it was Israel and the Jews who were to blame for America’s difficulties in the Islamic world. By 2008, Scheuer was arguing that Israel Firsters started the Iraq War. In 2009, Scheuer was sacked by the think tank at which he then worked for denouncing President Obamas choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, damning Emanuel as a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israels military. (Emanuel in fact worked as a civilian volunteer in Israel during the Gulf War ) Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don’t). Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason. The language became progressively more bold and accusatory. The relationship with Israel cost America blood and lives. Israel owns Congress. In 2012, while Michael Scheuer was campaigning for Ron Paul, a commentator named Mike contributed the following to a Ron Paul forum. I think Fox television would be missing a bet if it did not create a program called Lets Kill U.S. Kids and Bankrupt America. The show could feature [Gary] Bauer, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton explaining why America needs more and more wars and why the president is above the Constitution and can legally take the country to war without a declaration of war by Congress. In a subsequent interview with Ron Paul supporters, Scheuer confirmed that he was indeed the Mike who believed that his Fox colleagues wanted to kill kids and bankrupt Americaand that his relationship with Fox had ended as a result. And so, bump bump bump, all the way down. America is a big country, and as such it contains a lot of everything, including a lot of people of intemperate, extreme, and bigoted views. In the era of modern media, these people have more opportunity to discover each other and to express themselves ever before. Thats the price of progress. The good news is that the marketplace of ideas works. False claims (bin Laden is hugely admired in the Islamic world) retreat in the face of contrary evidence. Crackpots eventually reveal themselves as such, and forfeit their influence in consequence. The bad news is that charlatans are often able to extend their influence with the influence of partisans who should know better, but who find the charlatans charlatanism politically convenient. Over the past five years, Democrats have become excruciatingly sensitive to Republican abuses of this kind. But there was a time, and it wasnt so long ago, when liberal critics of the Bush foreign policy made similar common cause with a long roster of dubious characters: Karen Kwiatkowski, Juan Cole, John Mearsheimer why it seems only yesterday that Ron Paul himself could count on a friendly hearing at MSNBC. Partisans are seldom over-squeamish about their choice of allies. He may be a crank/crook/bigot, but hes an effective crank/crook/bigot”is a line of reasoning that would have been as familiar to James Monroe as to any modern politician. Yet it is a line of reasoning with some nasty terminuses, not merely for the partisan who follows it, but for the political system as a whole. Instead of arguing over whose hands are dirtier, maybe its time to begin to worry about how all our hands might begin to be cleansed.

Fair Usage Law

June 5, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer: Endall foreign aid, and all immigration …

Michael Scheuer lays out a checklist for dealing with the resistance to the Trump administration, and the misguided foreign intervention policies currently being considered by the Trump administration. I have a strong case of heart-burn over Trumps military intervention in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The result of these delusional exercises in reinforcing defeat will be the well-established norm: dead, maimed, and PTSD-ed Marines and soldiers; billions of wasted dollars; and more defeats. How could General McMaster and his fellow generals, for example, believe that the retaking of cities in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan is a game that is worth the candle? The actor John Wayne is reputed to have said that Life is tough, but its tougher if you are stupid. U.S. generals have thoroughly validated Mr. Waynes words, and their pensions and post-military, corporate-director salaries ought to be confiscated to help pay for the enormous costs U.S. taxpayers are going to pay for having their military mired in demolished cities and responsible for administering, feeding, and rebuilding them as the trophy for the feckless campaign that captures them, but leaves an unbeaten, stronger, and more elusive Islamist insurgent enemy in the field. Back to the so-called anti-Trump resistance, which, of course, will soon field the wholly-owned, Democratic Party-subsidiary known as the American Peace Movement, which I noticed was utterly silent during gangster-Obamas rule, though that cold-blooded thug murdered far more civilians than all of the covert operations undertaken in the decade prior to his election, probably by a factor of 50-to-1 or more. What to do? Two courses of action are in order. A) The first is for President Trump and his team to accelerate their campaign to make good on the goals set and promises made by Trump during the election. B.) With what Trump already has accomplished, moderate, visible, and tangible advances on the issues above ought to be enough to enlarge his majorities in Congress, and to reelect him in 2020. Read more here. Richard C. Young is the editor of Richard C. Youngs Intelligence Report, and a contributing editor to both Richardcyoung.com and Youngresearch.com.

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Media Kiss Brass as America’s Enemies Grow Stronger – GOPUSA

With massive leaks of classified information, some of them stemming from undiscovered moles in the intelligence community, the media continue treating former officials of the CIA and NSA who have presided over this debacle with honor and respect. The Business Insider article, 7 things the CIA looks for when recruiting people, is one of the worst examples of this obsequiousness. It is a plug for a book by former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror. Hayden was once photographed with former CIA/NSA analyst Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing classified information that helped our enemies. Snowden posted the photograph on his Twitter page. Hayden cant be personally faulted for Snowdens betrayal, but the series of leaks from the intelligence community certainly has cast doubt over hiring practices within the CIA and the NSA. Ironically, this is the subject that Business Insider wanted to know more about. In a video interview with the publication, Hayden explains what the Central Intelligence Agency looks for in a candidate. He listed the following characteristics as being attractive in a candidate: a second language, life experience, success, foreign travel and living in a foreign country. He failed to mention love of country and living a moral lifestyle. He did say that the CIA goes to college fairs looking for candidates, and We go to Arab-American week up in Dearborn, Michigan. He explained, Have a big tent up there where we talk to Americans of Arab descent. We recruit just like any other enterprise. The recruitment of Muslims during an age of terror involving radical Islamic terrorism is obviously problematic. But the idea of recruiting college students is also questionable. I asked former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer who was behind the most recent leak of classified information from the CIA and he suggested it might be a product of our rotten educational system that offers nothing in civic education or loyalty to the country. Scheuer, who ran the Osama bin Laden unit and retired in 2004 after a 22-year career, told me in an interview that when he joined the agency he was interrogated over potential background problems such as homosexuality and narcotics. By contrast, Obamas CIA director John Brennan said he joined the agency after voting for the Communist Party USA ticket and got accepted anyway. Under Brennan, Scheuer noted, the CIA held a month-long celebration of LGBT nonsense. He added, Theyve staffed the whole agency with it. The Obama administration definitely salted our security services and military services with people who felt like the Democrats are their protectors. The implication is that these people may be behind the anti-Trump leaks coming out of the intelligence community. The intelligence community is spared serious scrutiny for the obvious reason that journalists depend on their anonymous sources for news, leads and tips. In this case, the name of the game is taking down Donald Trump. But they could take America down with him. Hayden wrote his own anti-Trump piece, Donald Trump Is Undermining Intelligence Gathering, for the March 9, 2017 New York Times. Interestingly, his book thanks Vernon Loeb, formerly of The Washington Post, for proposing that Hayden write his book. Loeb was supposed to be his collaborator but took a job with the Houston Chronicle instead. Loeb had covered the CIA and the Pentagon for the Post before becoming its metro editor. With people like Hayden so clueless about the failures of U.S. intelligence in the age of terror, we have to wonder if the Trump administration will seek major changes and budget cuts in the intelligence community, which spends $50 billion a year. Since President Trump first expressed reservations about the work of the intelligence community, the problems have only gotten worse. Scheuer told me that the recent CIA leak gives terrorists the ability to evade hacking tools that were used on their methods of communication. But rather than examine the hiring practices at the CIA and other agencies, the House and Senate intelligence committees are mostly looking at allegations launched by anonymous sources from within the intelligence community against Trump and his Russian connections. These leaks appear to be the fulfillment of what Scheuer alluded tothe revenge of the Democratic staffers and sexual minorities put in place by the Obama administration. They have taken the offensive against Trump in order to protect their privileged positions. Going beyond this dreadful possibility, the leaks could be a way to divert attention away from moles for Russia or China in the CIA and other agencies. This would be a classic case of communist-style disinformation. Meanwhile, we can expect more damaging leaks, leading to possible terrorist attacks or blindness regarding the nuclear capabilities or intentions of countries like North Korea and Iran. If this traitorous conduct within the intelligence community continues, and Congress spends its time on other matters, the only alternative Trump might have is to drastically cut the intelligence communitys $50 billion budget. Perhaps that would get their attention. Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org. VN:D [1.9.6_1107] Rating: 9.7/10 (3 votes cast) Media Kiss Brass as Americas Enemies Grow Stronger, 9.7 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Fair Usage Law

March 17, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Media Kiss Brass as America’s Enemies Grow Stronger – Accuracy In Media

With massive leaks of classified information, some of them stemming from undiscovered moles in the intelligence community, the media continue treating former officials of the CIA and NSA who have presided over this debacle with honor and respect. The Business Insider article, 7 things the CIA looks for when recruiting people, is one of the worst examples of this obsequiousness. It is a plug for a book by former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror. Hayden was once photographed with former CIA/NSA analyst Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing classified information that helped our enemies. Snowden posted the photograph on his Twitter page. Hayden cant be personally faulted for Snowdens betrayal, but the series of leaks from the intelligence community certainly has cast doubt over hiring practices within the CIA and the NSA. Ironically, this is the subject that Business Insider wanted to know more about. In a video interview with the publication, Hayden explains what the Central Intelligence Agency looks for in a candidate. He listed the following characteristics as being attractive in a candidate: a second language, life experience, success, foreign travel and living in a foreign country. He failed to mention love of country and living a moral lifestyle. He did say that the CIA goes to college fairs looking for candidates, and We go to Arab-American week up in Dearborn, Michigan. He explained, Have a big tent up there where we talk to Americans of Arab descent. We recruit just like any other enterprise. The recruitment of Muslims during an age of terror involving radical Islamic terrorism is obviously problematic. But the idea of recruiting college students is also questionable. I asked former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer who was behind the most recent leak of classified information from the CIA and he suggested it might be a product of our rotten educational system that offers nothing in civic education or loyalty to the country. Scheuer, who ran the Osama bin Laden unit and retired in 2004 after a 22-year career, told me in an interview that when he joined the agency he was interrogated over potential background problems such as homosexuality and narcotics. By contrast, Obamas CIA director John Brennan said he joined the agency after voting for the Communist Party USA ticket and got accepted anyway. Under Brennan, Scheuer noted, the CIA held a month-long celebration of LGBT nonsense. He added, Theyve staffed the whole agency with it. The Obama administration definitely salted our security services and military services with people who felt like the Democrats are their protectors. The implication is that these people may be behind the anti-Trump leaks coming out of the intelligence community. The intelligence community is spared serious scrutiny for the obvious reason that journalists depend on their anonymous sources for news, leads and tips. In this case, the name of the game is taking down Donald Trump. But they could take America down with him. Hayden wrote his own anti-Trump piece, Donald Trump Is Undermining Intelligence Gathering, for the March 9, 2017 New York Times. Interestingly, his book thanks Vernon Loeb, formerly of The Washington Post, for proposing that Hayden write his book. Loeb was supposed to be his collaborator but took a job with the Houston Chronicle instead. Loeb had covered the CIA and the Pentagon for the Post before becoming its metro editor. With people like Hayden so clueless about the failures of U.S. intelligence in the age of terror, we have to wonder if the Trump administration will seek major changes and budget cuts in the intelligence community, which spends $50 billion a year. Since President Trump first expressed reservations about the work of the intelligence community, the problems have only gotten worse. Scheuer told me that the recent CIA leak gives terrorists the ability to evade hacking tools that were used on their methods of communication. But rather than examine the hiring practices at the CIA and other agencies, the House and Senate intelligence committees are mostly looking at allegations launched by anonymous sources from within the intelligence community against Trump and his Russian connections. These leaks appear to be the fulfillment of what Scheuer alluded tothe revenge of the Democratic staffers and sexual minorities put in place by the Obama administration. They have taken the offensive against Trump in order to protect their privileged positions. Going beyond this dreadful possibility, the leaks could be a way to divert attention away from moles for Russia or China in the CIA and other agencies. This would be a classic case of communist-style disinformation. Meanwhile, we can expect more damaging leaks, leading to possible terrorist attacks or blindness regarding the nuclear capabilities or intentions of countries like North Korea and Iran. If this traitorous conduct within the intelligence community continues, and Congress spends its time on other matters, the only alternative Trump might have is to drastically cut the intelligence communitys $50 billion budget. Perhaps that would get their attention.

Fair Usage Law

March 15, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

The Bushes: Unfriends – Sri Lanka Guardian

A lesson from two George Bushes: Never give the elite the benefit of the doubt by Michael Scheuer And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject.John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 13 (1) General revolts and rebellions of a whole people never were encouraged now or at any time. They were always provoked.Edmund Burke, 1777 (2) ( March 7, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sentiment is human weakness that always is an obstacle to clear thinking, or at least it always is in my case. I have always given George H.W. Bush and and George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I thought both were patriots and decent men. The former flew more than 50 combat missions during World War II, and the latter seemed sadly trapped in, and manipulated by, a nest of Neoconservative and Israel-First cretins. Since early in 2016, however, I have come to see how stupid and blinding it is to let sentiment hide the clearly visible truth that the Bushes are not Americas friends. The elder Bush was a disaster for America, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for a 4-year term. He is the author and first implementer of the totalitarian idea of a New World Order, which began what is now nearly 30 years of constant war for the United States. He laid the ground work for the current confrontation with Russia by greatly expanding NATO and unleashing Western greed to suck anything economically worth having out of the former USSR; he added countries to NATO that are irrelevant to U.S. security but sit right on Russias border; he squandered most of what President Reagan had accomplished; he fought an unnecessary, half-fought, unwon, and Islamist-benefiting war against Iraq; and he ran a reelection campaign against the whore-loving buffoon Bill Clinton that looked like it should have been in one of the lesser Marx Brothers movies. Finally, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Bush refused to endorse Trump, and his closest confidants suggested he preferred Hillary Clinton. Revalidating the McCain Rule that great physical courage does not connote even moderate brainpower or commonsense, it was all downhill for George H.W. Bush after the second Great War ended. Sadly, that decline ended up by delivering the United States to the malevolent hands and minds of Clinton and Obama, as well as to those of his son. George W. Bush outdid his Dad in terms of negative accomplishments, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for eight years, and even that success was minimal as his performance allowed the presidency of the execrable Obama. The younger Bush picked up his fathers interventionist mantle and waged a effeminate war against al-Qaeda, a genuine enemy of the United States, and a half-witted, small-footprint, losing, and utterly unnecessary war in Iraq, a war whose negative impact on U.S. interests has yet to be fully seen. Then, after his silence during Obamas eight years of military and cultural interventionism, pathological lying and racism, and Constitution-shredding, he joins his Dad, and his clueless yet extraordinarily arrogant bother Jeb, to publicly and clandestinely oppose Trump as Republican presidential contender, Republican candidate, president-elect, and president. Most recently, George W. Bush has been out hawking a book of his paintings and hobnobbing with Michelle Obama and other such mindless, virago-like Democratic women and celebrities, and mindlessly basking in the praise of these racist and authoritarian Amazons who would gladly spit on his grave. As if this long record of Bush anti-Americanism was not enough, George W. Bush this week took the time to instruct President Trump to avoid adopting an isolationist tendency because it would be dangerous to national security. By avoiding unnecessary interventions and wars and minding its own business, Bush said, the United States creates a vacuum that is generally filled with people who dont share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do. (3) Well, God bless George the Younger. In his reliably bumbling way, he has allowed Americans to see in the 30 words quoted above that the intent of post-1945 U.S. foreign policy has not been to defend them and their republic but to use the taxes and children of American workers to endlessly intervene abroad to rid the world of people and governments that dont share our ideology and who do not have the same sense [of] freedom we do. Bush is not referring here to the ideology and sense of freedom possessed by Americans, but rather to those that the internationalist/globalist/interventionist elites, like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, most European leaders, Bill Gates, George Soros, and untold numbers of other rich and highly educated people, want to impose on all peoples including Americans so they can rule people as they see fit and without the possibility popular resistance. Coincidentally, as this piece was being completed, the younger Bushs war buddy, Tony Blair, published a piece in theNew York Timeswhich calls on centrist progressives to hold their ground and defeat the populists and nationalists. Today, the Globalist-shill Blair wrote, a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left isopen vs. closed.The open-minded see globalization as an opportunitybut one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat. This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics. .. So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledgethe genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity. The center needs to develop a new policy agenda that shows people they will get support to help them through the change thats happening around them. At the heart of this has to bean alliance between those driving the technological revolution, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and those responsible for public policy in government.At present, there is a chasm of understanding between the two. There will inevitably continue to be a negative impact on jobs from artificial intelligence and big data, but the opportunities to change lives for the better through technology are enormous. Any new agenda has tofocus on these opportunities for radical change in the way that government and services like health care serve people. This must includehow weeducate, skill and equip our work forces for the future;how we reform tax and welfare systems to encourage more fair distribution of wealth; and how we replenish our nations infrastructures and invest in the communities most harmed by trade and technology. (4) I added the italics to Blairs words to make the point that the Western and global elites have not a clue about what is going on all around them, and what is increasingly likely to happen to them. For Blair, there is not a mortal divide between those who believe progressive government is the answer, and those who know that progressive government, if fully developed and entrenched, will be the greatest slave master in history. No, Blair sees the divide as being between the open-minded progressives and the close-minded hay seeds who have deserted the cause of social progress and cannot understand that progressives know what is best for them, a prescription that includes unlimited immigration; suppression of religion, nation-states, and nationalism; more intrusive government control of their lives through improved government services; and, naturally, larger taxes and welfare payments to ensure a more fair distribution of wealth, which, as always, means more money given to groups that are generally composed of the scum of the earth and will always vote for those that pledge to keep them forever on the dole. Throughout history, watching the demise of those who speak about and treat the great mass of people as if they are inferior human beings, and who are then utterly shocked when they find the inferiors bayonets in their bellies, always has been a most enjoyable experience. Blair, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Gates-Soros-Davos billionaires, and the rest of the Globalist clique are blithely and arrogantly striding down a path marked Pointy Ended Road, their trip having been blessed, ironically, by the applause-craving and hell-on-earth-creating Bishop of Rome. They will arrive at that roads dead end, hopefully soon, to find that the great unwashed understand all too well that progressives intend to impose a global tyranny on formerly free peoples, and they will be shocked to find themselves in a fight to their well-merited deaths. No cavalry will come to their aid, of course, because such forces always are composed of the children of the people they mean to rob of their wages and property, and then enslave. Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown Universitys Center for Peace and Security Studies. http://non-intervention.com

Fair Usage Law

March 7, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

US intel agencies deliberately sank Flynn, don’t care about national security ex-CIA officer – RT

Theres a war in Washington Donald Trump is facing a conflict not just with the media, but also with his own intelligence community. Now that the military lobby is infiltrating positions of power, and as the CIA struggles to get its influence back, what kind of shift are we going to see in the corridors of power? Will the intelligence community keep leaking data, or will they rally behind the new leader? We ask former CIA intelligence officer, former head of the CIAs Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer. Sophie Shevardnadze: Michael Scheuer, veteran CIA officer, welcome to the show. It’s great to have you with us. Sir, American spy agencies are withholding secret information from the president and his administration – and that’s according to sources in Washington cited by The Wall Street Journal. An intelligence official also told the Observer paper that the good stuff is kept from the White House. Are parts of the intelligence community engaged in a battle against the President? Michael Scheuer: The intelligence community in the U.S. of course, has been completely politicised under two people: first under George Bush by keeping a Democrat named George Tenet in charge of the CIA, and he staffed the agency with pro-Democratic people, and, certainly, Mr. Obama staffed it full of Democratic operatives, people who are indebted to the Democratic party. Immigrants, hispanics, transgender people, homosexuals – people who have more affinity for Democrats than for America or for the Republican party. So, it is a problem, although, I think, probably it’s a bit overblown. SS: So, you think them being indebted to Bush and Obama because they gave them job at CIA, they would go into a battle against president? MS: Not so much against Bush, but in favor of George Tenet who is a Democratic party operative. The glow of support for the Democratic party from the people they’ve put in there is very strong one, and the feel for the need their protection from the people who were sent into the agency and into different intelligence community organisations is very strong. But I think that, again, I think it’s overblown, and I think the president will sort it out. He may well have to purge some people of the organisations for being too partisan. SS: President Trump has accused the FBI and NSA of illegally leaking information to the press, giving out sensitive information like candy – are intelligence agencies deliberately trying to harm Trumps Cabinet? MS: At least, in the case of General Flynn it seems to be the case, because the only place that information could’ve come from was from NSA collecting or the FBI collecting intelligence. Now, it’s not per se illegal to collect against the American citizen, as long as it’s done passively and what I mean is they were surely collecting against the Russian Ambassador, that’s fair game. But, generally, if they collect what an American is saying, it’s not released and it’s redacted, so, clearly, they meant to do Flynn harm and, unfortunately they did. SS: The NSA intercepted the calls between Trump officials, then the FBI ordered to collect as much information as possible – according to the New York Times once again. Now are American intelligence agencies just spying on their own administration? MS: I think, it’s probably a mistake to take anything the NYT says with any bid of faith in what they’re saying. They’re clearly out to destroy this presidency, it’s only a month old, and I think the President can handle the press, simply by going over their head in news conferences and twitter and videos and things like that. The real problem, though, is cleaning out the government of Democratic apparatchiks and people who are more inclined to want to cooperate with the world rather than protecting America first. SS:Trump is saying that the leakers are going to pay a big price. The Justice Department is already looking into these leaks. Is it possible to identify the leakers in this case – and what happens to them if they are uncovered? MS: The tenets of the espionage law certainly cover that, as they should’ve covered Mrs. Clinton and hopefully they still will. Can they find them? There’s a good chance they can find them. The problem we usually have is that they don’t prosecute. But if they prosecuted a few people, I think that will persuade others not to do this. Certainly, it’s a crime, certainly it’s a blow against U.S. security. A lot of these people don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between their duty to their country and their duty to their political party. SS:The New York Times, and the Washington Post, CNN have all reported on Trumps campaign contacts with Russian officials – nevertheless theres been no evidence, like we’ve said so far, so far of the Trump team colluding with Moscow. The FBI has been investigating a scandalous Russia dossier for months but hasnt been able to confirm any of the explosive claims – why does this Russia issue continue to be pedaled, if the allegations are just not adding up? MS: Russia is a big boogeyman for the U.S., always has been. You have to remember that people who run our foreign policy, the neoconservatives – not only they are extremely pro-Israel to the point where they should be members of Knesset, but they join the Israelis in many ways in their hatred for Russians, and so, it’s just a matter of hate. I think, Mr. Trump won the day already with central part of the United States, where most working people live, when he said “I will try to get along with Russia and Mr. Putin. I see no reason for the first step to be animosity” – which seems to be fairly liberal approach to deal with superpower. I don’t know what more to say than that. Russia, there’s a gene in the American character, because of the Cold War that immediately, it’s hackles up once the word “Russia” is mentioned. If Putin and Trump can smooth things over and work, if not closely, at least.. SS: Yeah, I mean, Obamas CIA Director John Brennan warned Trump against embracing Russia, saying the President does not understand the threat Moscow poses – why is mending ties with Russia considered to be a threat among both the Republican and Democrat establishment? MS: The Republicans, because they’re run by the neoconservatives and the Israeli first lobby in this country and they will always be excessively pro-Israeli and excessively anti-Russian, that’s no way around that until people like Senator Graham and Senator McCain either pass away or retire. Mr. Brennan, of course, is a Democratic apparatchik, more and more you read that he’s probably in the pay of the Saudis, which would not surprise me… I tend to think that he was just playing politics, there seems to be some kind of a plan to make the operation of the presidency under Mr. Trump impossible, by the Democrats, by the New York Times, by some members of the government, the intelligence community. Mr. Trump has a big hill to climb now. SS: Trumps top officials arent that much in favour of closer ties between Moscow and Washington – whos going to have the final say in this regard, the president, or his cabinet? What’s your take? MS: Mr. Trump is going to have the final say, mam. I think, if we’ve heard anything in the past two years is that Mr. Trump has the way – he listens, he talks to very important and very respected, very knowledgeable people, and he makes his own decision. We’ve seen, if he falls out with someone, as in the case of General Flynn, who got fired not for what he did but for trying to cover it up or trying to lie about it – Trump will carry the day. I think, it’s so important for foreigners to realise that the great bulk of the American public, notwithstanding what the New York Post and the Washington Times and CNN and all those other people say, the bulk of the American people actually enjoys seeing a president make a decision, actually, like he has a job to do, and not just pontificate about his own personal ideas. SS: While its the Russians who are blamed for all US security breaches lately – Ex-Navy officer Hal Martin – the NSA contractor dubbed the second Snowden – has been arrested for major theft of govt data. Martin stole 50 thousand gigabytes of information which he openly stored in his home, he had classified papers lying around in his car.. How did the NSA miss this massive breach, once again? MS: Well, again, after 911 the intelligence community in the U.S. expanded to the extremely large extent, and they subcontracted vetting processes, clearance processes to companies that actually didn’t do a very good job about it. So, Snowden was able to do what he did, and he got away, he got to Russia and he helped the Russians. He should certainly be brought home and punished for that, but there certainly was the security breakdown on our side, also. SS: Martin worked for the same NSA contractor Snowden did and obviously the NSA didnt find about the security breach right away – does that mean the government may simply be unaware of other violations in its system? MS: I think, without a doubt. When you choose not to use your military to win wars that you’re involved in – as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we didn’t a tenth… the world didn’t see a tenth or a twentieth of American military power applied. The default position is to go to the intelligence agencies to do things that intelligence agencies are not equipped to do, whether it’s military operations or law enforcement operation. The result of that default was to expand the intelligence community and bloat it, and they certainly were not prepared for the security side of that expansion. SS: In his final days in office Obama has dramatically expanded the reach of American government surveillance – giving 17 agencies the right to spy on citizens. Why did he choose to leave this kind of power to the Trump administration last minute? Do you support the move? MS: I think he probably realises that because of his 8 years in power, the situation inside the U.S., the law enforcement situation and terrorism situation is out of control, as it is in Europe. He wanted to, I don’t know, wanted to expand these capabilities… but Trump will get blamed for using them. I think you’ve seen that if Trump does something that Obama did, no one knows that Obama did it, like the immigration ban – he followed Obama’s example. So Obama, here, in the U.S., is a useless man who accomplished nothing, and, indeed hurt the U.S., but he’s treated in a some ways as a saint. Mr. Trump is going to have to just man up and shoulder that theme. Again, though, if you don’t win your war with your military, with your conventional forces, you must rely on the intelligence community, and the more the intelligence community is relied on, the more tools it needs, and therefore, this kind of surveillance will become necessary, as someone has to defend the Republic. SS: As he was taking office there were reports – once again, in the New York Times – that Trump was planning to restructure the intelligence community – because its become too bloated and politicised – does it need this overhaul? MS: Yes, it does. It is way too big and there’s too few qualified people from the intelligence community of this size in the U.S.. Our education system has so broken down that we don’t train people to love their country anymore, we don’t teach them American history. We teach them not to be the U.S. citizens but citizens of the world, and so, they lack, I think, in many cases a killer instinct which is key in the intelligence work and again, its especially key when your leaders are too cowardly to apply military force against enemies that threaten the country. SS: Obama has loosened political oversight over the CIA – at the same time, with the government officials expecting the agency to support their political ideas – do you think the agency needs more control from the elected government or can it be trusted to be left alone? MS: The Agency, mam… one of the biggest things that I have been surprised by, is the idea that Agency is ever left alone. The Agency is palsied by lawyers, you can barely go down the hall to use men’s room without permission from a lawyer. What you need most of all is for people to stop appointing party apparatchicks, like John Brennan, like Mike Morell, like George Tenet, to position where they can create a situation that’s more like a social experiment – how much can we make this agency diverse and multicultural rather than how can we make this Agency an instrument for successfully promoting and supporting American foreign policy. SS: An example of the way the CIA politicised intelligence is for example the false evidence it presented to launch the Iraq war. If the intelligence is compiled according to policy, and not the other way around, does this mean the White House acts on the intelligence it wants to hear, not on what is actually happening? MS:To be fair, mam, I think the entire world thought that there were some kind of WMDs in Iraq. The problem I had with the whole process is that most of the information about WMDs in Iraq came from people who wanted to overthrow Saddam but couldn’t do it by themselves. I think the Agency has just come out of working in four different resistance situations – Nicaragua and Namibia, Cambodia and Afghanistan – and the one thing you learn very quickly was unless you could corroborate from other sources what the resistance was telling you, you would end up acting on false information, and I think, that’s largely what’s happened here. The information wasn’t good and George Bush and Dick Cheney were dying to go to war with Iraq, event to extent of ignoring the main enemy, which was then Al-Qaeda and now it’s the Islamic State. SS:Yeah, but my question is – all of this, does this still mean that the White House acts on the intelligence it wants to hear, not what’s really going on? MS: I can’t tell you, mam, under Mr. Trump how that will work out, but the one thing I did see, I went to work under Reagan administration, and ended up under Bush’s’ administration, the Junior Bush, the second Bush, and what I saw was the general politicisation of the American foreign policy-making, national security policy, to bend the information to fit the political needs of the President at the time. Not killing Osama Bin Laden, for example, was purely a political decision, so mr. Clinton wouldn’t look bad if it went wrong… I think it’s a process that needs to be undone. I’m not smart enough to know how to do that, but what you’re looking at is not a concern in American foreign policy for the protection of the Republican, but for the protection of the President. SS: The CIA conducts its own covert military operations, it operates a targeted killing programme – and sometimes its actions overlap with those of the Pentagon. In Syria the different CIA-backed and Pentagon-backed rebels groups ended up fighting each other. Is there a competition between the military and the intelligence – or can the two operate as a united front? MS: There’s probably some competition to the extent that CIA is doing military activities, that they have been ordered to do, which normally would fall to the military. So, there’s probably, some resentment on part of the military, but the military also, in a lot of cases, doesn’t want to do these things. I doesn’t want to go after people and capture them, it doesn’t want to do the waterboarding, it doesn’t want to do other kinds of activities, that unfortunately, are necessary in this day and age. The other point that I would make is that the American military is an extraordinarily slow and cumbersome organisation. When we had to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 for example, the CIA was on the ground, had built tents, had the coffee warmed, before any military got there. SS: While the military lobbies for perpetual war, can Trumps ideas of less American involvement and making deals with other powers will outweigh the hawkish opposition? MS: I certainly hope so, mam. I think, Mr. Trump has a great opportunity to let Mr. Putin, if he’d like to, to have to deal with the Arabs for the next 50 years, I think that would be wonderful thing, for example. Whether he can pull it off or not – I don’t know. The American Congress is really owned, more or less, by the Israelis, less by the Israelis than by Jewish American citizens here in the U.S. They say, you know, “jump”, and the American Congress almost to a person says: “how high?”. That’s a very hard nut to crack. I think Mr. Trump needs to do that, or we will be engaged in endless and ultimately bankrupting wars in the Middle East for no purpose. It does not matter to the U.S. for example, who rules in Kabul. It does matter to Russia, I think, but it doesn’t matter for us. SS:You believe the conflict in Syria is one that US has no interest in – do you think the new administration will give up its ambitions in the Syrian campaign? MS: Do I think or do I hope? I certainly hope they do, I certainly think any common sense review of what’s going on in Syria – I think that war is going to be 6 years old next month? The only Americans who have been killed have been people who wanted to be on the ground, messing around on the battlefield, whether they were NGO people or journalists, and a few U.S. soldiers because Obama re-intervened there. It doesn’t matter for us who rules in Damascus or in Baghdad. Let the parts fall where they may. Ultimately, that’s heading towards a Sunni-Shia war which could do nothing but benefit the U.S. SS: America is conducting anti-terror campaigns in Yemen, in Libya, its aiding troops in Iraq, it’s still present in Afghanistan – you want the US to pull out, end its interventions, but is it that easy? I mean, can the US just leave Afghanistan and have the Taliban take over, doesnt it have a responsibility to stay there now? MS: No. We have no responsibility for anything. Our responsibility was to destroy the people that attacked us in 9/11 – Osama Bin Laden is dead, Al-Qaeda is at least dormant or semi-dormant for the moment. We always have the power to go back and do it again and do it the right way, which is overwhelming it with an indiscriminate military force. Right now, what we’ve tried to do is impose values, sordid Western values on Afghans, who are Muslims, and sincere Muslims, and want no part of it. It’s a never-ending battle. We could stay there forever and we would never change a thing in Afghanistan. That’s just the beginning of wisdom for one part of the country. I think it would apply to Yemen or any other Muslim country. We have nothing to offer that they want. The only way we can impose it is by a bayonet. SS: The Washington-Tehran track is heating up right now. Trumps team wants a review of the nuclear deal, its imposing new restrictions, while Tehran is growing more defiant. How far can these tensions spike? Is a US-Iran military conflict now in the cards once again? MS: It certainly sounds like it does. I hope it isn’t. The Iranians are no threat to the U.S., they are threat to Israel, they are a threat to the Saudis – let the regional powers settle their problem. There’s 1.6 billion Muslims, a small portion of that are Shia – if the Sunnis can’t defend themselves against the enemy that’s infinitesimally smaller than they are, then they deserve to get defeated. But, who cares who rules in Tehran? Even if they have a nuclear weapon, which they will get, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t from their perspective – they are still not going to represent the power that Russia, Great Britain or the U.S. represents. They still get smashed in any attempt to take us on in any meaningful way. SS: Now, I know that your book, your analysis has been quoted by Bin Laden himself, as well as ISIS – is this strange kind of acknowledgement flatter you or makes you uneasy? MS: No, it flatters me in a sense that they see American who understands and listens to what they say. Osama Bin Laden would’ve been a great western politician in a sense that he stayed on message. He basically said “we don’t give a damn how you treat your women, what your women wear, whether you drink whiskey, if you vote, if you have freedoms or liberties – we want you to stop intervening in our country”, and that’s what I wrote. I wrote that in 1999, the Agency suppressed it for 2 years, 2,5 years, it was published in 2002, I think. It was right then, it is right now. As long as we intervene, we are the glue that holds together the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the rest of them. I’m not sure they would stop fighting us entirely, but it would be much-much more manageable and also they would turn to their other enemies – the tyrannical Arab states, the Israelis, other people in the region. And it’s better for those people to get killed than for Americans to be attacked and killed. SS: Alright. Mr. Scheuer, thank you for this wonderful interview, we were talking to Michael Scheuer, veteran CIA officer, who used to head the Agency’s Bin Laden unit, discussing the CIA’s role in the American power balance and its influence on a country’s politics. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

Fair Usage Law

February 28, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Why Do So Many Americans Fear Muslims? Decades of Denial About America’s Role in the World. – The Intercept

Theres been lotsofattention-grabbing opposition to Trumps Muslim ban executive order, from demonstrations to court orders. But polls make it clearpublic opinion ismuch more mixed.Standard phone polls show small majorities opposed, while web and automated polls find small majorities continue to support it. What surprises me about the poll results isnt that lots of Americans like the ban but thatso manyAmericans dont. Regular people have lives to lead and cant investigate complicated issues in detail. Instead they usually take their cues from leaders they trust.Andgiven what politicians across the U.S. political spectrum say about terrorism, Trumps executive ordermakes perfect sense. There are literally no national-level Americanpoliticians telling a story that would help ordinary people understand why Trumps goalsare both horrendously counterproductive and morally vile. Think of it this way: On February 13, 1991 during the first Gulf War, the U.S. dropped two laser-guided bombs on the Amiriyah public air raid shelter in Baghdad. More than400 Iraqi civilians were incinerated or boiled alive. For years afterward visitors to a memorial there wouldmeet a woman with eight children who had died during the bombing; she was living in the ruined shelter because she could not bear to be anywhere else. Now, imagine that immediately after the bombing Saddam Hussein had delivered a speech on IraqiTV in which he plaintively asked Why do they hate us? without ever mentioning the fact that Iraq was occupying Kuwait. And even Saddams political opponents would only mumble that this is a complicated issue. And most Iraqis had no idea that their country had invaded Kuwait, and that there were extensive United Nation resolutions and speeches by George H.W. Bush explaining the U.S.-led coalitions rationale for attacking Iraq in response. And that the few Iraqis who suggested there might be some kind of relationshipbetween Husseins invasion of Kuwait and the Amiriyah bombing were shouted down by politicians saying these Iraq-hating radicals obviously believed that Americas slaughter of 400 people wasjustified. If that had happened, wed immediately recognize that Iraqi political culture was completely insane, and that it would cause them to behave in dangerously nutty ways. But thats exactly what U.S. political culture is like. Interiors from a building in Amiriya district, a residential area on Baghdads western outskirts, after an Allied bombing on an air raid shelter by US bombers, Gulf War, Feb. 14 1991. Photo: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images In an interviewlast Marchwith Anderson Cooper, Donald Trump tried to puzzle out whats behindthe terrorism directed at the U.S. I think Islam hates us, Trump learnedly opined. Theres a tremendous hatred there, weve got to get to the bottom of it. In Islam itself? asked Cooper. Trump responded, Youre going to have to figure that out. Youll get another Pulitzer. During Trumps speech at the CIA right after his inauguration, he expressed the same bewilderment. Radical Islamic terrorism,pondered Trump. This is something nobody can even understand. John F. Kelly, now Trumps head of the Department of Homeland Security, is similarly perplexed,saying in a 2013 speechthat I dont know why they hate us, and I frankly dont care, but they do hate us and are driven irrationally to our destruction. Say what you want about the tenets of this worldview, but at least its an internally consistent ethos: Were surrounded by lunatics who want to murder us for reasons that are totally inscrutable to rational people like us but obviously have something to do with them being Muslims. Meanwhile, in private, the non-crazy members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment arent confusedat all. They understand quite well that Islamist terrorism is almost wholly blowback from the foreign policy theyve designed. Richard Shultz, a professor at Tufts whose career has long been intertwined with the national security state,has writtenthat A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as a small price to pay for being a superpower. That small price, of course, is the deaths of regular Americans, and is apparently well worth it. The 9/11 Commission reportquietly acknowledged,hundreds of pages in, that Americas policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. A senior official in the George W. Bush administration later put it more bluntlyto Esquire: That without the post-Gulf War sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden might still be redecorating mosques and boring friends with stories of his mujahideen days in the Khyber Pass. Intelligence professionals were quite aware that an invasion of Iraq would take the conditions that led to 9/11 and make them far worse. The British Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war published aFebruary, 2003 assessmentby British intelligence of the consequences of an invasion of Iraq, which would occur one month later. The threat from Al Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq, the UKs Joint Intelligence Committee told Tony Blair, and the worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly. The CIA had the same perspective. Michael Scheuer, who for several years ran the section of the Agency that tracked bin Laden,wrote in 2004that U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Ladens only indispensable ally. For its part, the Defense Departments Science Board concluded in a2004 reportthat Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. A Palestinian woman reacts amid destroyed buildings in the northern district of Beit Hanun in the Gaza Strip during a humanitarian truce on July 26, 2014. Photo: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images When Barack Obamatook office, he had two choices. First, he could tell the truth: That the U.S. has acted with extraordinary brutality in the Middle East, that this had been the main motivation for most Islamist terrorism against us, and if we continued the same foreign policy Americans would be killed indefinitelyin intermittent attacks. Then we could have had an open, informed debate about whether we like our foreign policy enough to die for it. Second, Obama could continue trying to run the Middle Eastwithout public input, but in a more rational way than the Bush administration. Obviously he went with the second choice, which demanded several different forms of political correctness. Most importantly, Obama pretended that the U.S. has never done anything truly wrong to others, and can enjoy the benefits of power without any costs. This is the most pernicious and common form of political correctness, but is never called that because the most powerful people in America love it. But Obama also engaged in something more akin to whatsgenerally called political correctness, by contendingthat Islam hasnothingto do with terrorism. But it does just not in the way that Frank Gaffney and Pamela Geller would tell you. Religion and nationalism have always been similar phenomena, and Islam sometimes functions as a formof nationalism. Andlike all nationalisms, it has a crazy, vicious right wing thats empowered by outside attacks on members of the nation. The right loves to jeer at Obama forcalling Islama religion of peace, and they should not because Islam specifically isnt a religion of peace but because there is really no such thing, just as there is no nationalism of peace. Its true religions and nationalism canbring out the best in people, but they also bring out the worst (sometimes in the same person for the same reasons). But Obama could never say anything like that, because he knew the U.S. needs the governments of Muslim-majority countrieslike Saudi Arabia and Egypt to keep the rest of the Middle Eastin line. This amalgam of political correctness made it impossible for the Obama administration ever to tell a story about terrorism that made any sense. For instance, in his2009 speech in Cairo, he declared, It is easier to blame others than to look inward and then went on to demonstrate that truism. His description of wrongs done by the U.S. was vague to the point of meaninglessness: tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims. Also, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Obama then explained that Violent extremists have exploited these tensions. So 19 people were motivated to fly jetliners into buildings by tensions? If thats the only story that non-Muslim Americans hear, theyllrationally be terrified of Islam. In 2010, Obamas counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, emitted a similar bland puree of words at a press conference whenquestioned by Helen Thomasabout Umar FaroukAbdulmutallab, the failedunderwear bomber. Their exchange went like this: THOMAS: And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [theyre] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death. THOMAS: And youre saying its because of religion? BRENNAN: Im saying its because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way. THOMAS: Why? BRENNAN: I think this is a, uh, long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland. At his sentencing, Abdulmutallabexplained his motivationin less time than it took Brennan to say there wasntenough time to explain: [I pledged] to attack the United States in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants. To be fair, there is one situation in whichAmerican officials have lost the mushmouth and drawn a direct connection between a country killing Mideastern civilians and terrorist retaliation: when that country is Russia. William Burns, formerly Obamas Deputy Secretary of State, recently and accurately proclaimed that Russias bloody role in Syria makes the terrorist threat far worse. John Kirby, an Obama State Department spokesman, warned that Russias brutalization of Syria would lead toattacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russias response to our friendly observation was about the same as ours when Russia told us before the invasion of Iraq that it would cause a wave of terror. Trump supporters demonstrate against a ruling by a federal judge in Seattle that grants a nationwide temporary restraining order against the presidential order to ban travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, at Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport on February 4, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. Photo: David McNew/Getty Images That brings us back to President Trump and his executive order on immigration. Trumps story about why its necessary is, factually speaking, garbage. But a normal human being can at least understand it and its moral: These incomprehensible foreigners are all potential psychotics, weve got to keep them out. Under these circumstances, who cares that no one from any of these seven countries has killed any Americans yet? Theyre all part of a huge morass of ticking time bombs. By contrast, the Democratic, liberal perspective laid out by Obama makes no sense at all. Weve never done anything particularly bad in the Middle East, yet some people over there want to come here and kill us because theyve been exploited by violent extremists whove perverted Islam and gotta run, theres no time to explain. Regular people couldsense that anyone mouthing this kind of gibberishwashiding something, even if they didnt realize that Obama was trying to keep the U.S. empire running rather than concealing his secret faith inIslam. And because a coherentnarrative always beats the complete absence of astory, no one should be surprised that many Americans find Trumps fantasy of inexplicable Muslim hatredpersuasive. The only way to conclusively beat it will be with a coherent, complicated, true story like this: America has done hideous things to countries across the Middle Eastfor decades, such as bomb a civilian air raid shelter, burning the silhouette of a mother trying to protect her baby onto its walls. It was inevitable that some people would seek revenge. This doesnt mean that their brutality is justified, any more than the slaughter at Amiriyah was justified by Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait. It just means that humans are humans, violence begets violence, and Americans will always be in danger unless we change our foreign policy. We must welcome immigrantsfrom the Middle Eastboth for moral and pragmatic reasons. Morally, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is what sent the region spiraling into catastrophe; only psychopaths set someones home on fire and then lock them inside. There are already three million Muslim American citizens. If the government keeps bombing the Middle Eastwhile making it clear that it genuinely hates Muslims, thatwill onlyspur to action more troubled weirdos likeOmar Mateen who was born in Queens, a few miles away from Donald Trumps childhood home. And wed better get started with this story soon, because it may not be true forever. Israel has done an exemplary job turning a solvable, straightforward fight over land into a religious war that may no longer have any solution. Were making similar strides in transforming a conflict that was 90 percent political, where there can be compromise, into a religious conflict where there cant. This can be seen, on the one hand, in ISIS propaganda. Bin Laden generally just talked about kicking the U.S. out of the Middle East and said thingslike, Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe. The ISIS magazine Dabiq cheerfully tells usthat We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. On the other hand, Donald Trump is president of the United States and Steve Bannon is his chief strategist. Bannon straightforwardly believes, as he told a conference at the Vatican in 2014, that were in a war of immense proportions thats part of the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam. To win, Bannon says, we must form the church militant an archaic term for the Christian church on earth regarded as engaged in a constant warfare against its enemies, the powers of evil. So its quite possible ISIS and the Trump administration can successfully collaborate on getting what they both want: a totally unnecessary, civilizational war. To stop them we have to end ourtruckling equivocation about terrorism, and start telling the truth while theres still time. Top Photo: During a memorial service in Baghdad, Iraqis gather around a bomb hole in the ceiling of the Al-Amariya shelter in 2003, where more than 400 people were killed in a U.S.-led missile attack during the Gulf War. Iraqis opened a new memorial center outside the Al-Amariya shelter to mark the 12 year anniversary of the attack.

Fair Usage Law

February 18, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Al-Qaeda Is Already Exploiting Trump’s Hawkish Foreign Policy to Help Recruit – AlterNet

Photo Credit: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula propaganda outlet Al-Malahem Al-Qaeda’s most extreme branch is using the Trump administration’s bloody first military raid in order to recruit more fighters. The leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is based in Yemen, released an audio recording in which he called President Trump a “fool,” according to the Associated Press. “The White House’s new fool has received a painful blow at your hands in his first outing on your land,” proclaimed Qassim al-Rimi, the head of the extremist group. Al-Rimi said the U.S. raid killed 25 people, including 11 women and children. (Media reportsclaim even higher numbers of casualties.) The U.S. government identified a Navy SEAL who lost his life, William Ryan Owens, and al-Rimi claimed more were wounded or killed. Among the civilian victimswas 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki, the daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and extremist propagandist with links to al-Qaeda who was killed in an Obama administration drone strike in Yemen in 2011. Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was also a U.S. citizen, was killed in a drone attack two weeks after his father. The Trump administration’s first raid “caused more anger and hatred toward America,” explained a Yemeni government employee quoted in the Chicago Tribune. “America has no right to carry out any military action in our country,” he added. “This is a serious violation for our country’s sovereignty and is totally unacceptable.” The attack has fueled anger at the U.S. throughout Yemen, where for nearly two years, the U.S. has supported a destructive Saudi bombing campaign that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people and plunged the poorest country in the Middle East intofamine. This catastrophic U.S.-backed war has likewise amounted to a shot of adrenaline for AQAP, empowering and enrichening it after a 14-year covert U.S. drone war against the extremist group. The Trump administration, with its extremeanti-Muslim prejudices, has only continued to ramp up military intervention in Yemen, in alliance with Saudi Arabia. AQAP is widely recognized as one of the most dangerous affiliates of the global Salafi jihadist organization. It claimed credit for the January 2015 attack on the office of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. The latest AQAP propaganda audio recording is just one of the many ways in which the U.S.’s so-called war on terror has actually helped strengthen the extremist groups it purports to be fighting. Al-Qaeda has long openly used U.S. military atrocities for recruitment purposes. It taps into widespread anger at bellicose American foreign policy to attract militants to its violent sectarian cause. In the September 2011 issue of its propaganda magazine Inspire, AQAP acknowledged, “America’s subtle hatred for Islam drastically helps us.” (This is reminiscent of ISIS propaganda in which the genocidal group explicitly says it hopes to destroythe “Grayzone,” or space in which Muslims are accepted in Western societies.) The Inspire issue marked the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which it described as “the greatest operation in the history of mankind.” AQAPrejoiced at how the multi-trillion-dollar costs of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have exacerbated the government deficit and hurt the American economy. The extremist group also boasted that U.S. wars in the Middle East had essentially played into the hands of al-Qaeda kingpin Osama bin Laden. Its magazine quoted Michael Scheuer, a former CIA intelligence officer turned staunch critic of the war on terror, who recalled, “Basically Bin Ladin said jump and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said how high?” Anti-Iranian sentiment and sectarian bigotry against the Shia sect of Islam also pervades AQAP’s propaganda. The Trump administration has ramped up tensionagainst Shia-majority Iran, Sunni extremists’ biggest enemy, and is pushing for war with the major Middle Eastern power. A hyper-belligerent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, like that of former President George W. Bush, threatens to further strengthen Salafi jihadist groups in the region. President Trump has made every indication that he will continue down this path. Ben Norton is a reporter for AlterNet’s Grayzone Project. You can follow him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

Fair Usage Law

February 15, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Will Latest Foreign Policy Executive Orders Drive the Country to More War? – Tenth Amendment Center

In the wee hours of the morning on Nov 9, 2016, as the returns from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania indicated a Trump victory, a wave of shock crashed over American politics. Then there was a second wave of astonishment in the wake that election night victory: the realization all the power the political left and right spent years ceding to the presidency to shape the American economy, culture, and politics might now turn on them. One such vested power is the authority to send Americans into war zones. It has been rumored that President Trump will establish safe zones in Syria; he intimated as much during his campaign. A draft of an executive order establishing safe zones was released a few weeks ago: Establishment of Safe Zones to Protect Vulnerable Syrian Populations. Pursuant to the cessation of refugee processing for Syrian nationals, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, is directed within 90 days of the date of this order to produce a plan to provide safe areas in Syria and in the surrounding region in which Syrian nationals displaced from their homeland can await firm settlement, such as repatriation or potential third-country resettlement. Although that provision was removed from the final EO Trump signed relating to refugees, it seems unlikely the idea is dead and it certainly wasnt excluded because the president and his advisors decided it was outside of executive authority. The fact that such an executive order was even entertained raises two immediate concerns. First, it creates opportunities for mistakes that only increase the likelihood of war with Syria, the various factions in the region, and other countries that have a stake in Syrias future. Second, that any president can send Americans into a war zone with very little oversight is a terrible indication of how much extra-constitutional power has been ceded to the president. Safe zones increase the opportunities for mistakes that can lead to larger wars. Yet, the American officials advocating for safe zones fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Americas problems with Middle Eastern countries. According to Dr. Michael Scheuer an expert on the Middle and the former CIA analyst once responsible for following Osama Bin Laden there are six answers to the question Why do they hate us? Summarily, the problem is one of regional conflict and American intervention. Safe zones will not deal with the sources of the problem because a lack of safe zones isnt the problem. Setting up safe zones will only perpetuate the violence. What if an American plane or ground troop kills a Syrian civilian or a foreign soldier? It becomes more likely that locals, the Syrian government, or the foreign government will respond by escalating attacks on Americans. This will increase an American willingness to do something, like increasing an American military presence and activities. An American safe zone in Syria cannot account for the multitude of factors that are leading to violence in Syria. Stated differently, when all decisions are left up to one person, the likelihood of misdiagnosing the problem and implementing the wrong remedy are increased. Let us put this scenario into economic terms. If a government raises the minimum wage above the market clearing price, it will, by the laws of economics, lead to unemployment. In response to calls to do something about the unemployment, the government can only raise taxes, borrow money, or print money. Any of these three responses will be ruinous to an economy; people will then call for more government intervention. The government intervention perpetuates more intervention. The two scenarios above both show the dangers of government intervention. In both cases, the central planners suffer from the Hayekian Knowledge Problem. Very simply, the knowledge problem means that one person or a group of people cannot possibly know all the factors that shape all the interactions in society. Its best to leave the decisions to the individuals or groups who are most familiar with the situation. Applying this to our question of executive orders and safe zones, the people and government of Syria should be the ones to discover the solution to their problems rather than outsiders imposing artificial boundaries. (NB: the United States government has actually played a role in destabilizing the Syrian government. So, an immediate military extrication from Syria is an important first step). The second concern is that a president thinks he is empowered to sign such a sweeping executive order because Congress has allowed so much power to be amassed by one office. Fifteen years after Congress voted to give President Bush an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against those responsible for 9/11, that authority has never been revisited. Presidents Bush, Obama, and now Trump will be using that wide-ranging authority. While a handful of members of Congress made efforts to reexamine the AUMF, there is very little interest in taking a stand. This is rightly a congressional prerogative, but while the Congress dithers the presidential powers and the use of executive orders will grow. If Congress will not act to defend the constitution then the states must step in. The state legislatures must do so even contrary of the federal governments wishes how else is the Tenth Amendment to be enforced? P.A. Deacon is a freelance blogger from Washington D.C.

Fair Usage Law

February 13, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."