Archive for the ‘Michael Scheuer’ Category

Michael Scheuer | ePluribus Media

Michael Scheuer Calls For Osama to Attack: Glenn Beck and Fox News Air It

Three days before the Fourth of July — a holiday celebrating our nation’s Independence Day — and the reich-wing has stepped up the drumbeat toward insurrection, treason and sedition. Hat-tip to MinistryOfTruth of DailyKos

Every Republican member of Congress should be immediately called upon to voice their opinion on this outrage, on the record and in public.

Every right-wing pundit and “strategist” — particularly those like Karl Rove, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh — should have to weigh in, publicly and on the record.

This is the ultimate incitement of domestic and foreign actions by active enemies during a time of war: it is treasonous, it is seditious, it is wrong on so many levels. In light of all the troops who have fought in our name and to protect our nation “over there” so that we could never again be attacked over here, this unrejected statement made by Schaeur on Fox News is the ultimate slap in their faces.

It is the ultimate in dishonor.

It is the ultimate un-American sentiment.

It is beyond fathomable.

Check out the diary by Ministry of Truth for action items, and get involved now — before another Timothy McVeigh, James W. Von Brunn, Eric Robert Rudolph, Dan White, James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald or Scott Roeder.

Let’s put the words of Mike Malloy to the test: do Republicans really want our nation to fail? Do Republicans really want us to bear the brunt of another 9-11 or Oklahoma City bombing?

They’re worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for Gods sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn’t that clear?

Those are the words attributed to Mr. Malloy; they ring too true, now. Let’s put the Republicans in Congress to the real test, and see if they live up to their hype, or to their actions. And in the meantime, let’s ask the FCC and Secret Service to pay Fox and friends a little visit.

Read the original here:

Michael Scheuer | ePluribus Media

Fair Usage Law

January 3, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – amazon.com

“[Scheuer]’s examination of al Qaeda is a bracing corrective to much that has passed as analysis about the group.” – CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen in the Washington Post “A masterful job at… interpreting what bin Laden is trying to tell America but that has fallen on deaf ears.” – Studies in Conflict and Terrorism “Among the ‘war on terrorism cognoscenti’ in and around Washington, D.C., mere word-of-mouth established [Through Our Enemies Eyes] as required reading for anyone seeking to understand bin Laden, the movement that he cofounded and led, and the profound threat that it posed (and continues to pose) to the United States and to international peace. Accordingly, the book’s reputation spread as a thoroughly reliable, trenchant, and commendably clear exegesis of al Qaeda’s ideology, goals, and alarming ambitions…. The key to success in warfare, the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote, is to ‘know your enemy and you will know yourself.’ In Through Our Enemies Eyes, Scheuer answers the first part of that irrefutable formulation.” – From the foreword by Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow, Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, and author of Inside Terrorism “[Scheuer’s] examination of al Qaeda is a bracing corrective to much that has passed as analysis about the group.” – CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen in the Washington Post “A highly informative analysis.” – The Washington Times “A masterful job at… interpreting what bin Laden is trying to tell America but that has fallen on deaf ears.” – Studies in Conflict and Terrorism “A sobering portrait of Osama bin Laden.” – The Christian Science Monitor “This is a book that all professional soldiers should read since it represents, in significant detail, the views and motivation of one of our primary adversaries, while clearly defining the severity of the ongoing threat.” – Armor”

Read this article:

Michael Scheuer – amazon.com

Fair Usage Law

November 15, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

"Bin Laden should have been dead long ago": Mehdi Hasan on …

In September 2007, in the run-up to the sixth anniversary of the 11 September attacks, Osama Bin Laden released a video message. Addressing the “people of America”, the al-Qaeda leader denounced US foreign policy, from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the invasion of Iraq. He also had a piece of advice for ordinary Americans. “If you want to understand what’s going on, and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us,” he said, “then read the book of Michael Scheuer.”

It may have seemed an odd choice, given Scheuer’s past role as head of and chief adviser to the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station, a unit dedicated to tracking the al-Qaeda leader between 1996 and 2005. Scheuer wrote two books on al-Qaeda while working for the CIA – Through Our Enemies’ Eyes (2002) and Imperial Hubris (2004) – both of which he was made to publish anonymously. He quit the agency in November 2004 so that he could speak more openly about Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and what he regards as the US government’s failure to understand the threat from Islamist terrorism, and has since published Marching Towards Hell (2008) and Osama Bin Laden (2011).

I meet Scheuer in London and ask him about being named by the terrorist leader in the 2007 video. “I got a call from the agency early in the morning,” he remembers. “Mike, we have a copy of a speech by Bin Laden that the NSA [National Security Agency] just translated,” the CIA official told him. “You’re mentioned in it – but it’s not a threat.”

As Scheuer discovered when he watched the video, it was an unexpected endorsement of his writing from his former prey. Paperback sales of Imperial Hubris skyrocketed – as did sales of books by Noam Chomsky, who was also cited as an authority in the al-Qaeda leader’s taped message. Four years on, Scheuer jokes about the connection. “It was bad enough that Bin Laden mentioned me, but to mention me in the same breath as Noam Chomsky . . .” He rolls his eyes.

Scheuer, 59, is a lifelong Republican voter. Scruffy, chubby and bearded, he is an avuncular figure, but one with elaborate good manners – he tends to address his interviewers as “sir”. Looking at him, you would find it difficult to believe he once led the CIA’s hunt for Bin Laden.

The terrorist leader was little known when the Bin Laden Issue Station was set up in 1996 with the aim of gathering intelligence on him and disrupting his growing finances and activities. Scheuer, who had worked as an analyst on the CIA’s Afghanistan project between 1985 and 1992, was selected as the first head of the unit, and it was soon code-named “Alec Station” after Scheuer’s son. It was also, however, nicknamed “the Manson Family”, such was the relentlessness with which Scheuer and his team of 12 talked up the al-Qaeda threat.

So, what does Scheuer think motivated Bin Laden to namecheck him in that video? “He understood that I was trying to kill him, maybe, but he also understood that I took him seriously, I guess.” He pauses. “And he probably liked that.”

In his writings and his interviews, Scheuer reliably makes provocative statements about the late al-Qaeda leader. “If there’s such a thing as a Muslim educated by Jesuits, it would’ve been Bin Laden,” he tells me. “Because I was educated by Jesuits . . . [Like them] he matched words and deeds very well. And that’s what worried me more than anything. It wasn’t the rhetoric itself – but he said he was going to do X and he did X. He said he was going to incrementally increase the pain and he did incrementally increase the pain.”

Does he see something of himself in Bin Laden – his own “Jesuit” temperament? Surprisingly, Scheuer nods. “Yeah, I do . . . as someone who’s educated [to think] . . . that it’s not enough to talk your religious or moral beliefs, you have to act on them. And that’s exactly what I saw in him as a danger.”

What did Scheuer make of the video that showed Bin Laden watching himself on television, which emerged from his compound in Pakistan after he was killed by US navy Seals in May? “It was perfectly in character,” Scheuer says. “We knew he was obsessed with the idea that Arab leaders have to be very well-spoken, and that he spent an enormous amount of time having his texts checked for grammar. And so when I saw him I thought, well, he’s checking how he looks, he’s checking how he portrays himself, in order to improve [his image]. That was my impression based on what I knew about him – but maybe he was just an egomaniac.” Then he shakes his head. “I don’t think so.”

Given the way he talks about Bin Laden, I can’t help but ask Scheuer if he admired him. He shrugs. “How can you not have an admiration for a man who kept the greatest power the world has ever seen on tenterhooks for 15 years?” He adds a caveat. “Admiration doesn’t connote empathy or sympathy or support. What it means is what the British used to call a ‘worthy enemy’. Whether it’s a guy like [Field Marshal Erwin] Rommel or, in the United States, a guy like General Robert E Lee, who came closest to destroying the Union. He was a traitor, but someone you had to respect and understand before you could defeat him. Just because a guy is your enemy doesn’t mean he’s a dummy; it doesn’t mean he’s pathological. And who does it hurt if you have an enemy and you say, ‘Well he’s a madman, I don’t have to listen to him’? You hurt yourself.”

For Scheuer, Bin Laden was not crazy; he was a rational, ruthless and talented leader, a “modern Saladin”. As he writes in his new biography: “[M]y view of Bin Laden is far out of the mainstream. I have long seen him as America’s greatest mortal enemy; I have never thought it enough . . . to curse him and condemn him simply because his views and faith are antithetical to our values.”

His critics have accused him of being obsessed with the al-Qaeda leader. The neoconservative academic Fouad Ajami, reviewing the biography in the New York Times in February, compared the author to Moby-Dick’s Captain Ahab. Does he miss OBL? “How can you miss somebody who wants to blow up your country? You don’t,” he says. Then he qualifies his response: “But I really did enjoy the challenge of understanding what he was up to.”

Was the news of Bin Laden’s death a big moment for him? “It was a big moment for America.” But what about him personally? Scheuer doesn’t take the bait. “Well, I’m an American. I think he was a danger to our country. He was never anything more to me than a threat that needed to be taken care of.”

What motivated him to write his first two books anonymously while still serving as a CIA analyst? “I wrote [them] because I didn’t think we were getting it. The message [of Bin Laden] was there – it was clear, it was available in English – and yet we still had presidents talking about, you know, ‘Here come the bombers because they don’t like primary elections in Iowa every four years.'”

Scheuer was frustrated by his government’s unwillingness not just to understand Bin Laden, but to kill him, too. In The 9/11 Commission Report, where he is named only as “Mike”, he is portrayed as being annoyed by the Clinton administration’s failure to target Bin Laden aggressively in the late 1990s. The fact is, he says now, “we had a chance to kill Bin Laden for five consecutive nights in the third week of May 1999; we knew each night where he was staying in Kandahar. They didn’t shoot at all.” Why not? Were his superiors worried about collateral damage? “Yeah, collateral damage,” he says sarcastically. “The shrapnel might hit a mosque.”

He couldn’t contain his rage at the lack of action. “So what I did was write a memorandum to the top 12 or 14 people in the agency. I said: ‘Listen: a) the intelligence is not going to get any better, and b) this is a guy we need to take seriously and if you don’t do anything not only are a lot of Americans going to die, but you’re going to have an ‘intelligence failure’ on your hands.” It was the end of his career in charge of Alec Station. “The agency’s a very small ‘d’ democratic place. You can argue, you can bitch, you can debate, but you cross the line if you put it on paper. And if you put it on paper and put it in an electronic system where it can’t be purged, they really get mad.”

On the morning of 11 September 2001, Scheuer was sitting in his office at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, having been reassigned as to the agency’s counter-narcotics programme. A friend called and told him to turn on the television. Scheuer switched it on to watch United Airlines Flight 175 fly into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

Did he know instantly that Bin Laden was behind the attacks? “Instantly.” Scheuer says the mood among the rank and file at the CIA’s HQ on the day was one of anger. First, because “Bin Laden should have been dead long ago”; second, because it was clear from that moment that politicians and the media would blame the attacks on an “intelligence failure”.

Scheuer believes that weak, short-sighted and incompetent politicians should take their share of the blame – chief among them the former president Bill Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger and his counterterrorism tsar Richard “Dick” Clarke. “Bill, Dick and Sandy helped to push Americans out of the windows of the World Trade Center on that September morning,” he wrote in 2006.

Does he regret making such an inflammatory statement? Can he really believe that? “They did,” he says in a low voice. Does he think Clinton was worse than George W Bush when it came to handling the threat from Bin Laden? “I think they were both terrible presidents.” Yet, in Bush’s defence, Scheuer says that between the end of the Clinton administration and 9/11, “we didn’t know where Osama was”. This, he suggests, makes Clinton more culpable.

But didn’t Bush exacerbate the terrorist threat by invading Iraq? “Oh, absolutely,” he says. “Iraq moved Osama and al-Qaeda from man and group to philosophy and movement.” And he hints, ominously: “I don’t think we’ve begun to see the disaster Iraq is going to cause in the years to come.”

Scheuer also blames the Bush administration for the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment. “The Islamophobia in the United States is directly attributable to the [Bush] White House, because of the endless lies about ‘Muslims hate us because we’re free, because there’s women in the workplace, because we drink beer’. And the American people say, ‘Well, if that’s true, we’ve got to be afraid of them.'”

In Marching Towards Hell, he excoriates the Democratic and Republican “bipartisan governing elite”, who are equally to blame, he believes, for the west’s failure to defeat al-Qaeda. He has little patience for the successors to Bush and Blair, Barack Obama and David Cameron: their advocacy of regime change in Syria and implementation of regime change in Libya, he says, make them “recruiting sergeants” for the next generation of terrorists.

Nonetheless, he is full of praise for Obama’s handling of Bin Laden’s killing. “There is no taking away from him for doing the right thing. We’ve become so used to the American president not doing the right things in terms of protecting his country that it’s a great change.”

Does he not think Bin Laden should have been tried in a court of law for his crimes? “It would have been hard to try him. If you tried him, he was going to be speaking to the Muslim world from a courtroom for two or three years.”

I ask him the $64,000 question – is US foreign policy to blame for the rise of al-Qaeda and its affiliates? His answer is cryptic: “I believe it is the chief means by which the United States can extricate itself.” Later he explains: “We have given birth to a movement – through the invasion of Iraq and through our inability to cope with the fact that so many people in the Muslim world, whether or not they’re willing to pick up a gun, regard us as malignant because of our policies.”

His critics say it is too simplistic to blame foreign policy for suicide terrorism against the US. Even if the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and disengaged from the wider Middle East, wouldn’t there still be groups of Islamist terrorists bent on causing harm to the west? Scheuer concedes the point, but contends that it would then be “a manageable problem”. “I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to blow themselves up because my daughters go to university . . . People are going to come and bomb us because they don’t like what we’ve done.” Scheuer often singles out Israel for criticism, arguing that the US’s “unquestioning support” for the Jewish state’s dispossession of the Palestinians has helped radicalise young men across the Muslim world, boost al-Qaeda’s status and endanger US national security. He has received hate mail and death threats in response, and says: “The anger within the Jewish community in the US towards me is quite extraordinary.” He argues that he was sacked from a post at the Jamestown Foundation in 2009 for his anti-Israeli remarks.

Some have claimed – the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat included – that Bin Laden had little interest in the fate of the Palestinians, and that he cynically exploited the conflict after 9/11 to garner support from ordinary Muslims in his war against the west. “That’s a complete lie, sir,” Scheuer counters. “If you read the first thing [Bin Laden] wrote, there are probably nine or ten different references to Israel/Palestine . . . The idea that he was a Johnny-come-lately is completely made up.”

Scheuer has admirers on the left and the right. The former quote his views on the link between US foreign policy and the al-Qaeda threat; the latter point to his support for near-indiscriminate military action against terrorist groups, the use of “extraordinary rendition” and CIA special prisons, and his relaxed attitude towards “collateral damage”. “Killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes,” Scheuer insists in Imperial Hubris. “With killing must come a [General] Sherman-like razing of infrastructure.”

His argument seems to be that Washington has two options: either it changes its “failed policies” in the Muslim world or it embarks on a mass killing spree against suspected terrorists. He remains unapologetic about this. “America today is one big Israel,” he says. “All it has to defend itself is the intelligence services and the military, because our politicians will not address the issues that are at play.”

By the time Scheuer left the CIA in 2004, he had served in the agency for 22 years. How did his wife cope with being married to the CIA’s Bin Laden hunter? “She was always very supportive of what I did. But the toll it took from late 1995 until 2004 was that I missed nine years of my children growing up, from the ages of two and three.”

Was it worth it? “It was,” he says. “And it’s certainly not as bad as fathers who went to fight the Japanese or the Germans for four or five years. I wasn’t getting shot at.”

He never served as a field operative, instead devoting his intellect and energy to rigorous analysis of his enemies’ words and deeds – a task that he has continued in his “retired” life as an author and academic (he is now an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University, Washington).

Scheuer disagrees with former colleagues in intelligence circles who believe that al-Qaeda is in decline, marginalised by the Arab spring and Bin Laden’s death. “I think, potentially, they’re stronger than they were on 9/11,” he says. “On 9/11 they had [only] one main platform, which was Afghanistan.”

Whether or not you agree with everything he says, it is hard not to be impressed by his self-confidence and clarity of thinking. I ask him what he would do if he were in charge of his nation’s security. How would a President Scheuer reduce the terrorist threat?

You square with the American people. You say, ‘I’m sorry, we’ve been lying to you for 30 years – your daughters can go to school without burqas, you can have beer after work, they’re not going to blow us up for that. But they are going to blow us up because we’re supporting Israel, because we protect the Saudis . . .’ And none of that stuff is necessarily a condemnation of a policy; it’s just an adult view.”

But he remains deeply pessimistic. “I think the only thing that changes anything in America any more is calamity. And unless there’s a calamity of some sort, this foreign policy of ours will stay the same,” he says morosely.

In an interview broadcast in July 2009, Scheuer caused outrage by suggesting that “the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States”.

Ten years on from 9/11, does he still worry that there will be another al-Qaeda attack on US soil? “I think there will be.”

Mehdi Hasan is the NS’s senior editor (politics)

Here is the original post:

"Bin Laden should have been dead long ago": Mehdi Hasan on …

Fair Usage Law

October 1, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Ex-CIA Bin Laden chief Michael Scheuer speaks out …

By Kevin Barrett on February 17, 2014

My latest Press TV article Americans speaking out about Israelification of the USA could have cited Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIAs Bin Laden unit in the 1990s. Scheuer has been increasingly vocal about the damage done to US interests by Israeli and Saudi clout in Washington.

Below is a transcript of roughly the first third of my two-hour interview with Michael Scheuer.

Barrett: (Youve been warning America for more than a decade, but it still isnt listening.)

Scheuer: No, they wont listen, sir. The first book I wrote was finished in 1999, and the Agency locked it up for two years because they were afraid it would offend Arabs. It was only after 9/11 that their concern lessened a little bit.

Its like yelling into a closet. The American people, God bless em, are just sobadly educated and unaware of how duplicitous their leaders are.

Were much worse off today than we were when we started to fight al-Qaeda and its allies in 1995, and certainly infinitely worse off than we were in 2001. And yet our president, Mr. McCainthey all say that the killing of Bin Laden has been the turning point in this war.

Americans just dont seem to get the difference between what they are told and what the reality is. If this wasnt a problem, or not the problem it used to be, everyone wouldnt be so upset about the Russians not letting us help out with security in Sochi for the Olympics.

Barrett Well, I dont blame them. After Bandar Bush, as hes sometimes called, went to visit Putin, and threatened him with terrorism directed at the Olympics if he didnt support Bandar and the so-called Syrian rebels, who are supposedly on our sideyou know, I wouldnt really want American security help either.

Scheuer Well, in many ways I have to agree that to a great extent, our success or our defense depends on being surrounded by two oceans. And its rather hard to get in here on airplanes at the moment. But whats slowly happening is that I think we will see young American Muslims, who we have assumed the so-called melting pot would take care of, will be attracted to the same sort of propaganda, the same sort of rhetoric, that has been so appealing to Muslims in Europe and Africa and of course across the Middle East. And well be fighting this war at home increasingly over the next decade, fifteen years.

Barrett Well, Im Muslim, by the way. And my sonI guess you could call him a certain kind of radical American Muslim. Hes a radical libertarian Ron Paul supporter kind of guy. (laughter)

Scheuer As am I! Though Im a Roman Catholic. But the point I was trying to make is that its a sort of an arrogance to assume (a) that everyone is the same and will be affected by the same assimilative pressures or interests, and (b) that religion has nothing to do with whats going on. There would be no problem if this was not a religiously motivated jihad or war or whatever you want to call it. The fact that our leaders wont even take than on board as a possibility is really going to be fatal to America in so many ways

Barrett Lets back up for the listeners who havent done their homework on this even some of my listeners may miss some of these things and talk about the gist of your analysis of whats really at stake here. Youre saying that this whole propaganda wave weve been washed in since 9/11, about how theyre coming after us because THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM, and they dont like the way our women dress and this sort of thing, is all nonsense. And there are some very straightforward and simple reasons why there is a worldwide insurgency in the Islamic world.

Scheuer Yeah, Kevin, I have to say that if the Muslim world was upset with us for women with short skirts, or Budweiser beer, or early primaries in Iowa, the threat wouldnt even rise to a lethal nuisance, probably. They certainly wouldnt have those things in their countries many wouldnt, anyway. What theyre mad about is what were doing, what our government is doing in the Muslim world what I call intervention. Becoming involved in countries where we really have no interest, where we really dont have anything to do with teaching people anything. Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama have taken this war of civilization to a higher level. And weve moved away from simply using military power. Now were involved in trying to teach these people how to be good, secular Westerners.

Barrett And at the same time were supporting al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria. Whats that about?

Scheuer Its aboutal-Qaeda has known for a long time, sir, that all they have to do, all al-Qaeda and their allies have to do, is find someone who shaves, wears a suit, speaks a little English, and can be pushed out in front of them, and keep saying the word democracy.

The American leadership will fall in line, and do al-Qaedas work for them. Weve provided the air support for their takeover, or partial takeover, of Libya. If Putin hadnt saved our bacon, we would have done the same thing in Syria.We would have helped get rid of Assad, allowed the murder of a million Alawites, and put the jihadis in power.

So itsthis is certainly a lost generation of leaders. Ive often thought that if America survived my generation (I was born in 1952) I would be very grateful.

Barrett You and I have pretty similar reactions to these seemingly utterly senseless post-9/11 policies, and even pre-9/11 for that matter. But it seems like youre totally devoted to the incompetence theory: That the reason our politicians have done exactly the wrong thing at every step along the way has been pure stupidity. You did have a line though, I think its in Marching Toward Hell: Only madmen and perhaps a few neoconservatives and Israel-firsters would have sought these consequences. Only madmen and neocons! Those may not be mutually exclusive categories. (laughter) But when I look back and see that you were prevented ten times from taking out Bin Laden before 9/11and then 9/11 happens and BOOM, the policies are Lets try to drive the Islamic world even crazier, lets murder even more millions of Muslims, lets do everything we can to ENCOURAGE this worldwide insurgency And who does it benefit?

Scheuer It doesnt benefit anyone. Except our politicians in both parties think it will keep them in power. And theyre so politically-correct. That has gotten to be such a trite and overused phrase, but, my God!

I dont think these people are stupid. I would prefer it if they were. What I contend is that theyre liars.

They all have better educations than I had. I didnt get to go to Harvard or Princeton or any of the Ivy League schools, or to Stanford. All of these people were educated there. The abundance of information thats available about the motivation of our Islamist rivals, or our Islamist enemies if you prefer, is extraordinary. We havent had enemies since Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, and before that Adolph Hitler, who were so willing and eager and desperate almost to tell us what they were mad at, why they were mad about it, and what they were going to do. Unfortunately for America, we could tolerate fools and stupid people, but the choice is only between being a liar, and being a worse liar, sir. These people know exactly what the problem is. The Muslim world doesnt hate Americans as people. Ive traveled extensively, during the course of my career, in the Muslim world, in both the Middle East and South Asia. And invariably, the courtesy that was extended to us, to me, was extraordinary. And the appreciation for Americans and their generosity in times of natural disasters and other kinds of problems is very great. But inevitably, the question comes over dinner, or over tea: Why are you supplying the Israelis with F-16s to kill Palestinian young people? Why are you supporting the police states that run, take your pick Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the rest of the Gulf countries?

Muslims are not stupid people. Thats one of the assumptions we make at the official level in Washington, in America, is that they cant differentiate between Americans and their government. And the focus of Muslim hatred is not on Americans. It is definitely on the United States government. And we are the essential ally of the most violent, most militaristic part of the Muslim community around the world: the jihadis.

Barrett Thats a good point. One metaphor Ive sometimes tried to use, which would frame it very differently from the way you frame it you frame it by focusing on the jihadi element but the thing is, Mike, that in the Muslim world, the vast majority of people feel very, very strongly about some of these issues, with what I would call the genocidal Zionist occupation of Palestine being number one. And we all pretty much feel that way. Or the vast majority do. And I think were objectively right on this. Before I even came to Islam, I knew enough about Israel-Palestine to know that the Palestinians are right: This is a completely absurd crime that has been committed against them.

So my metaphor would be that this is like the civil rights movement in the 60s, where obviously this group of people is being oppressed, theyre obviously totally right about the issues theyre angry about. And then you have this very tiny, tiny segment of this vast number of people who want to change things and get their fair share, their rightsa tiny number are willing to commit violence. So by focusing obsessively on that tiny number who are willing to commit violence, and reacting badly or over-reacting that might make the problem worse. If (in the 1960s) someone had said, well, were going to have to kill huge numbers of black people because of this and youve said things a little bit like this in some of your books if they had, wouldnt there have been even more black people who got mad enough to go out and cause trouble?

Scheuer Well, I certainly think thats true. But we have to realize that this is a war. This is a war of global dimensions. At least from my perspective, the idea that you dont kill people because theyll get madder at you is sort of nonsense. Its absolutely true, but its absolutely irrelevant. And its irrelevant because the leadership of this country the academic leadership, the media leadership, the political leadership of this country, and to a great extent much of the religious leadership of this country has created a situation in which we deny the existence of the problem. And for that reason, the only tools were bringing to bear to defend ourselves are the intelligence services and the military. And America has never won a struggle, a war, with just those two entities. What are they good for? Theyre good for killing. And if thats all youre going to do, youre going to have to kill an enormous number of people. Many more today than in 2001. And thats the box America is in. Until we can be adults and say, listen, they dont care if we vote early in Iowa, they dont care if my daughter goes to university.

What they care about is our intervention in their world: Our support of the Israelis, our fifty years of support for tyrannies in the Middle East.

Whatever it is, thats what motivates them. And until we address the motivation, in our own minds at least, and at least accept that thats what their motivation is, we have no choice but to kill people. No matter what the impact is on the rest of the world. Because ultimately you have to defend yourself.

Barrett Right, butlets step back and ask, what are the real US interests in the Middle East? Do we need to support Israel? Do we need to prop up these dictators?

Scheuer Well, certainly, I have argued consistently over the course of four books that neither Palestine nor Israel is of the slightest bit of concern to the United States. And one of the reasons that struggle goes on is because of our constant intervention in favor of the Israelis. If we hadnt been backing the Israelis ever step along the way, there would have been some kind of settlement by now, or some kind of solution to the problem. But ultimately, from an American perspective, if every Palestinian died, or every Israeli died, or both of them, there would be a lot of empathy, a lot of sympathy, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but at the end of the day, to American national interests, it wouldnt matter a bit. It wouldnt make any impact on us at all.

To me, the support for the Israelis is a twofold disaster. It involves us in a war with a civilization that really doesnt have a desire to fight us, except for the fact of our intervention on behalf of the Israelis and others. Secondly, it corrupts our domestic political system to a point where several years ago, five hundred members of our Congress gave 29 standing ovations to Netanyahu after our President laid out a position that was in direct contradiction to Netanyahu.

Barrett Yeah, I couldnt believe that.

Scheuer Im afraid Ive been inside of this beast for so long that I was hardly surprised. Although the numbers that were attending that meeting were somewhat stark. But these peoplethe problem for America is not Israel. The problem for America is the American Jewish community, or that portion of it that are dead enders, that are maximalists, that sit here in America with their children, their homes, their jobs, their happy fat bank accounts, and bankroll the extremists who run the Israeli government. Thats the danger to Israel. Thats the danger to the United States political system.

Barrett And youre getting more and more forthright about saying that. And the usual suspects, the neocons and the hard-line Zionists, have really gotten upset with you lately.

Scheuer Well, not lately. Almost since the day I resigned and began to speak out.

Barrett But they get more hysterical all the time.

Scheuer They do. Theyre a little bitI dont know if theyre unstable, or just frenetic. But they are extraordinarily vicious people, in terms of what they write to me, in terms of what they write to my employers, in terms of what they put in public print.

But at the end of the day, theyre defending an indefensible position. Theyre defending, in many respects, a position thats absolutely treasonous to the United States, and incompatible with being an American citizen.

Barrett Thats a great point. I dont quite understand how they get away with it. Including the dual citizen issue. We just heard Stanley Fischer, whos going to be number two at the Fed apparently, is a proud dual citizen who has announced it in public. And this is, I guess, a new precedent. Weve been told that a lot of the other high-level people, people like Perle and Wolfowitz and so on, may have been dual citizens as well, but theyre not telling us. Is there some kind of policy about allowing people with a declared loyalty to a foreign country to be in high-level foreign policy positions?

Scheuer Of course there is! There are rules, there are laws against that. You can take your choice. If you want to be an Israeli passport holder, thats fine, but youre no longer an American citizen. But just like so many other laws, whether its under Bush or Obama or Clinton or the first George Bush you can go back four presidents they only enforce the laws they want to. I think its unconscionable. You cannot get a passport from another country, you cannot get a passport from America, without swearing allegiance to the United States or to the other country. Any American citizen who holds a foreign passport, whether its an Israeli passport, an Irish passport, a Lebanese passport, an Armenian passportwhatever it is, should immediately be cashiered out of any kind of position of trust with the US government. And forced to make a choice. They are either going to be an American citizen or theyre going to be an Israeli, Lebanese, whatever-youd-like citizen. They cant be both. Im not a strong religious person, but I think its very clear you give to Caesar whats Caesars. You cant serve two masters.

Barrett I think its become more and more clear, especially since Walt and Mearsheimer put out their book, that this really is the issue: US support for Israel is not, as people have been saying for many years, because Israel has been helping us as our cop in the Middle East; they come up with all kinds of stories about why this is supposed to be helping the US. But obviously all its doing is making us huge numbers of enemies.

Scheuer Its interesting to watch, I think, the US Jewish community from a distance of just me observing them. They may be the first part of the melting pot thats un-assimilating. Its very clear: They send their children to join the Israeli military instead of the US military.

They are opting out, really, of any part of American society that doesnt agree with them that Israel is somehow as important, or more important than the interests of the United States.

Barrett I had Gwyneth Todd on my show awhile back. And she, Im told, served on the National Security Council at the time that Richard Clarke was also on the Council. And she had some rather uncomplimentary things to say about Richard Clarke. She said and I had this confirmed by someone else that he was caught spying for Israel by the FBI, and that made him ineligible for some positionI forget what the position wasand then he got booted upstairs to the National Security Council, AFTER hed got caught spying for Israel. Have you heard anything about this?

Scheuer I havent heard anything about that sir, no. But I have to say that Israel probably has the best espionage system of any foreign country in our country, because so many people turn a blind eye to it. If you question anything that an American Jew does, or that Israel does, youre immediately an anti-Semite. Look at what this baseball player from Milwaukee did, when he failed the drug test for steroids Braun, Ryan Braun. He immediately accused the person who took the test of being an anti-Semite. What happened? He got off the hook the first time, until they proved it definitively. It is an all-purpose marginalizer of people who question the relationship between the Israelis and the United States. And it is the ultimate, next to the word terrorism, debate stopper.

Barrett Right. I learned that the hard way myself in the academy. Its really the ultimate taboo. And its strange how it works. Because the Zionist Jewish people are not exactly a poor powerless oppressed group. And yet thats kind of the way its played that its terrible to say bad things about the poor powerless oppressed minority types. And heres a group thats got double the average income of non-Jewish Americans, thats totally dominating foreign policy, and yet theyre benefiting from the same kind of protection we think were affording to poor oppressed powerless minorities.

Scheuer Theyre really the only ones who can publicly flaunt their disloyalty to America and be applauded for it. But Ill tell you one experience I had. Israel is not the only one. When I worked for the CIA, if we were gathering information, or some kind of a collection effort that was benefiting the United States but really didnt have any pertinence to another foreign country, if the Israelis found out about it, or if the Saudis found out about it, and you refused to share the information with them because it really had nothing to do with them, or their national security, they were the two countries on earth who could call the White House, bypass the intelligence community, and get the White House to order the release of that information to them. As bad as the Israelis are, at least theyre public about it; you can see their disloyalty. But the Saudis are very quiet. Theyre very rich. They use their own money instead of our money to bribe us. And theyre very good at collecting former senior intelligence officers, diplomats, generals, businesspeople, and putting them on the payroll of Saudi Arabia after theyve retired to lobby our government. Its a dirty, ugly business. And I wish there were some way to end it. But I dont know how to do it.

Visit link:

Ex-CIA Bin Laden chief Michael Scheuer speaks out …

Fair Usage Law

August 22, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Mike Sarne – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Sarne (born 6 August 1940) is a British actor, writer, producer and director, who also had a brief career as pop singer Mike Sarne. He is of Czechoslovakian descent.[1]

Sarne was born Michael Scheuer at St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, London. Active in the 1960s as singer, he is best known for his 1962 UK novelty chart topper, “Come Outside” (produced by Joe Meek), which featured vocal interjections by Wendy Richard.[2] He had three more releases which made the UK Singles chart: “Will I What?”, in 1962, which featured Billie Davis; “Just for Kicks”, in 1963; and “Code of Love”, also in 1963.[3]

In the mid-1960s Sarne introduced the ITV children’s quiz series Junior Criss Cross Quiz.

As an actor he has appeared on television, in British series including The Avengers, Man in a Suitcase, Jonathan Creek and The Bill. Sarne also appeared in an episode of Minder as Billy Beesley, an amateur safe blower. His film credits include a starring role in the 1963 film A Place to Go with Rita Tushingham, directed by Basil Dearden, and he also appeared in Invasion Quartet (1961), Every Day’s a Holiday (1965), Two Weeks in September (1967), Moonlighting (1982) and Success Is the Best Revenge (1984) for Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski, and the Hercule Poirot film Appointment with Death (1988). He also played an SS captain in the TV miniseries War and Remembrance (1988). He later appeared in The Fourth Angel (2001), as Valery in the crime thriller Eastern Promises (2007), and in 2011 he was the voice of Karla in the spy film Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. In 2012 he played Father Mabeuf in the film of Les Misrables.[4]

Films he has directed include Joanna (1968) and Myra Breckinridge (1970), an adaptation of Gore Vidal’s book of the same name, starring Raquel Welch, Rex Reed, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett in her first big screen role. Joanna broke even at the box office, but Myra Breckinridge was a major box-office flop and drew such critical hostility, his career never recovered. A more recent film is The Punk and the Princess (1994), an adaptation of Gideon Sams’ young adult novel The Punk, about the romance between a teenage punk rocker and a Sloane Ranger girl. He also directed a documentary about the Glastonbury Music Festival in 1995.

He attended the School of Slavonic and East European Studies earning a BA.[5] Sarne had a relationship with Brigitte Bardot only a few days after her honeymoon with Gunter Sachs.[6] He has 5 children: Claudia and William from his 19691978 marriage to Tanya Sarne, founder of the designer label Ghost; and Emma, Abigail and Sarah with second wife Anne Musso, whom he married in 2004 in Chelsea, London.[7]

His brother, David Scheuer, had a brief acting career in the 1960s and 70s.[citation needed]

Link:

Mike Sarne – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

About Michael Scheuer and Non-Interventionism | Non …

Why non-intervention.com?

For a long time, it struck me as quite egotistical and probably arrogant to think that I had anything to say about contemporary U.S. foreign policy and the perils of its relentless interventionism that would merit a website of my own. And to tell the truth, I still have doubts that (a) I have much to say that is insightful on the issue and (b) that anyone will much care what I have to say.

Still, I have had a good number of responses positive and negative to what I have written on foreign-policy issues since I resigned from the CIA in November, 2004. Since that date, I have been privileged to have had the opportunity to write for Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com. I want to offer my thanks and sincere appreciation for the space they gave me, and to say very clearly that by starting my own site, I am in no way criticizing those sites. Indeed, I should be most pleased not to say shocked if this site has anywhere near the substantive success or level of interest Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com have achieved.

That said, I finally decided to try a site of my own because I am not fully committed to an unyielding anti-war position. I certainly do believe that we are engaged in far too many wars; that most of them are unnecessary; and that almost all of them are the consequence of Washingtons rabid post-1945 interventionism. To the extent that Washington under both Democrats and Republicans stops intervening in overseas affairs that are of neither genuine concern to the United States nor threats to U.S. interests, we will find ourselves in far fewer wars. And I might add, in passing, that if Americans begin to aggressively insist that all wars in which their country becomes engaged must per the Constitution be formally declared by the vote of Congress, we would likewise have far fewer wars.

But I do believe some wars are both necessary and unavoidable; indeed, I believe that human beings are hard-wired for war; that they are not perfectible; and that the only mercy in war is an enormous application of military power that wins victory for the United States in the shortest possible time. At present, the only war that falls into the necessary and unavoidable category, in my view, is our war against al-Qaeda and the growing Islamist forces it leads and inspires.

Motivated by Washingtons interventionist policies in the Muslim world, that foe declared war on America in August 1996. Sadly, we have yet to find a U.S. political leader in either party who will forthrightly accept the fact that we are at war with the Islamists; nor have we found one who will tell the American people that we are at war because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world unqualified support for Israel, support for Arab tyrannies, invading Iraq, etc. and not for who we are and how we live here in North America.

Today, Americans are rightly suspicious of calling our struggle with the Islamists a war because they again rightly cannot believe that people would wage a nearly 14-year war and gladly die in the conflict because American women go to university, there are early primaries in Iowa every four years, and many of us have a beer or two after work. The consistent lies of our last four presidents, leading generals, much of the media, and nearly all of the academy They hate our freedoms, not what we do have misled and blinded Americans to the very real threat the Islamists pose to domestic security in the United States and some of our interests overseas.

My primary interest, then, in starting this website, is to discuss the almost totally negative impact of Washingtons bipartisan lust to intervene abroad, as well as to talk about how interventionism undermines U.S. security, the nations economy, and our countrys social cohesion. I also think it is appropriate to discuss here how far we have strayed from the Founding Fathers vision of what America and Americans should be at home and how the republic should conduct itself in the wider world. This site will argue that the Founders recipe for safeguarding America in 1789 remains pertinent today: all Americans must be vigilant of their liberty; politically active in its defense; broadly educated to help assess politicians, policies, and foreign entities that threaten that liberty; and armed to defeat enemies, foreign or domestic, who threaten that liberty.

It will quickly become clear that I am not an original thinker on these issues, but rather a person who was educated with, and is loyal to, the ideas of those brilliant and far-seeing men who founded our republic. I look forward to presenting my ideas and commentary on this site, and, even more, I look forward to considering, discussing, and learning from the responses of my fellow citizens.

See the article here:

About Michael Scheuer and Non-Interventionism | Non …

Fair Usage Law

June 18, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer (Ex-CIA): President TrumpA Chance Worth …

Originally posted January 25, 2016.

Former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer announces, Is there an America-First enemy of interventionism among the presidential candidates?

I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves.

(a) The United States can break the Islamic States back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls

(b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war.

Dr. Scheuer next takes a look at Republican and Democrat presidential candidates and examines what each has to offer.

On Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby.

On Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an outsider in this bunch, they are all members actual or aspiring of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bushs deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the New World Order.

On Donald Trump: Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, Americas worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration. Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking.

Related video:

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 here:

Michael Scheuer (Ex-CIA): President TrumpA Chance Worth …

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Is there an America-First enemy of … – Michael Scheuer

All this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will. Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791-92

Even in the midst of his destabilizing intoxication with the French Revolutions madness, Thomas Paine still was able to peer into the future and accurately describe the state of the U.S. government and the republics political system in 2016. And no truer words could be spoken about contemporary Americas foreign-policy disaster than Paines point that the defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will.

In his recent State of the Union address, for example, President Obama asserted that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Islamist movement do not pose an existential threat to the United States. Obama would have been 100-percent correct if he had been speaking when al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996.

The reason that the Islamists are now, without question, an existential threat lies in the war-causing interventionism of the past four presidents and their administrations, as well as their cowardly refusal to win the wars they started. Of the four, Obama stands out for special condemnation, as no single Muslim could have done more to promote the confidence, geographic spread, and numerical growth of the Islamist movement. It is these national government actions that have motivated and nurtured the Islamists, and they will remain and grow further as an existential threat to the United States until the citizenry elects a president who puts America first by calling a halt to unnecessary overseas interventionism, and engages in wars only when America is attacked or narrowly defined U.S. national interests are at clear and indisputable risk.

I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves.

(a) The United States can break the Islamic States back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls in Syria and Iraq, and and if we wait much longer probably Libya. After doing this, the U.S. government can withdraw all of its military assets from the region, announce that U.S. forces are not coming back to save anyones bacon, and advise the sixty-plus other countries in Obamas coalition to align with the Saudi coalition and destroy the remaining Islamists. Because the Saudis and their coalition support most of the non-IS Islamists and probably some of the IS ones this scenario will quickly lead to a regional Sunni-Shia war in which our enemies will merrily kill each other until well after the cows come home.

(b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war. As this savagery evolves, Americans must do all that is necessary to secure the republics position in North America close borders, deport all illegal aliens, temporarily stop all immigration, etc.

Again, this is not a complicated problem: the United States must utterly destroy the Islamist enemy and then leave the region, or the United States must leave the region and end its unnecessary, war-causing, and always ineffective interventionism and let the Islamists take on their main enemies, Muslim tyrants, Israel, and the Shia.

For twenty-five years, however, the U.S. government has done neither. It has waged war in a half-way (half-assed?) manner and lost two wars, an exercise in foreign-and-military futility that has succeeded in enriching an environment in the Islamic world that is intensely anti-U.S. government, yielding enormous growth in the Islamist movement, and convincing many millions of Muslims that the mujahedin can win because their success so far demonstrates Allahs approval of their efforts.

Given Americas limited options and with time to make a choice running short, the 2016 presidential election is acutely important because it may be the last chance for Americans to make the choice described above before getting sucked into catastrophe in the Middle East. Sadly, only one of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates seems to offer anything other than more of the same war-causing measures. Lets have a look.

Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby. She and Obama are responsible for the Libyan invasion, which in a year or so will produce the same kind of problems and perhaps worse as those produced by the Hillary-supported, George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. She also seems to be a chronic liar, an influence peddler, and an enemy of U.S. national security.

Bottom Line: President Hillary Clinton = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, continued open borders, and the potential spectacle of a sitting president and perhaps her husband being convicted and imprisoned for an array of crimes.

Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley: These two characters provide the 2016 campaign with a reliable and more than ample supply of the putrid-and-nation killing breath of warmed-over 20th century socialism and communism. Perhaps forgetting how those creeds bred authoritarianism (anyone recall National Socialism in Germany?), one-party rule, the mass murder of dissenters, and the destruction of the economies of Eastern Europe, Central and South America, much of Africa, Russia, India, and China, Sanders and OMalley represent an enormous step backwards in their effort to make todays America into the Eastern Europe of the 1950s. Neither seems as corrupt or criminally inclined as Mrs. Clinton, but they offer nothing except a Bolshevik-made blueprint that ensures minority rule and Americas demise. Sanders, in particular, can never be permitted to assume the presidency. But on foreign policy they both are establishment Democrats, they want to make the rest of the world democratic, feminist, and secular and that can only be done despite Sanders claim that he prefers diplomacy with more and more war.

Bottom Line: President Sanders or President OMalley = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, a weaker military, more minority rule, deeper debt, more taxes, less liberty, continued open borders, and more presidential diktats.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an outsider in this bunch, they are all members actual or aspiring of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bushs deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the New World Order.

Bottom Line: President Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Kasich, or Bush = More of the same from the Republican establishment; that is, more America must lead prattle, more war, more dead Marines and soldiers, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, and continued open borders.

Rand Paul: This is the best and most specific conservative candidate on a combination of issues, including the debt, the Federal Reserve, the return of constitutional governing, reducing tax rates, right to life, and protecting the 2nd and 4th Amendments. On foreign policy, however, his websites softly spoken statements suggest complete support for Israel which means endless war with Islam and the continuation of U.S. alliances, apparently meaning an array of Sunni tyrannies on the Arab Peninsula and in the Middle Wast and NATO and its expansionism which means endless war with Islam and possibly unnecessary conflict with Russia. Perhaps most troubling, the website does not seem to have a discussion of the vital importance of reestablishing a U.S. foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention; indeed, I could not find those words on the website .

Bottom Line: President Paul = More of the same Republican interventionist foreign policy and so more war, debt, taxes, dead Marines and soldiers, and precious little time to work for the return to constitutional government.

Donald Trump: This candidate has given few details about his views on foreign policy, save that he will be tougher on Mexico and China, will deport all illegal aliens and close the border, and will stop making the kind of free trade agreements that kill U.S. manufacturing and so the ability of lower-income Americans to move into the middle class. He also suggested that if America is forced to go to war to defend itself he will use U.S. military forces to annihilate the enemy. He has given no indication that he would intervene abroad unnecessarily or launch offensive wars, like those in Iraq and Libya. All of this sounds good, but he must speak more clearly and with conviction if he wants voters to believe that he will unlike his Republican and Democratic competitors make foreign-policy decisions solely on the basis of what is best for Americas relatively few and never abstract national interests. What is most intriguing and encouraging about Trump is that he is not politically correct, he is admirable in his ready combativeness, he speaks like an American not an effete and clueless Ivy-League theoretician, and he is making enemies of Americas most dangerous internal enemies. On the last point, watch Foxs Brett Baier and his usually excellent Special Report each evening and there you will see George Will and Charles Krauthammer twist every question posed to them in a way that permits them to defame and pour vitriol on Trump. And then listen to one of the Grand Masters of disloyal Israel-First-ism, Bill Kristol, who has long passed the apoplectic stage in his hatred of Trump and his staying power in polls of Republican voters. Finally, look at the large number of former U.S. general officers who have endorsed Jeb Bush. These men and their still serving colleagues have lost every war America has fought since VJ Day in 1945, and not one has shown any qualms about getting their young Marines and soldiers killed or maimed in wars they know their president does not intend to win. Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, Americas worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration.

Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking.

Originally posted here:

Is there an America-First enemy of … – Michael Scheuer

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – Official Site

This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about Israels right to exist is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A states ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive to genuine U.S. national security interests.

That said, Israel and all nation-states have an absolute right to defend themselves in the manner they deem mandatory for their survival. In the now-dying Western democracies that defense includes the process of national elections to choose national political leaders. For a foreign nation to interfere in such elections as the disloyal U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters and Mexican governments routinely do in U.S. elections is to undermine the intervened-in nations absolute right of self-defense. The Obama administrations State Department apparently identified disloyal Israeli citizens in Israel and transferred to them at least $350,000 for to use in a campaign meant to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in the recent Israeli election. Such intervention is tantamount to an act of war, just as it is criminal negligence for any government to refuse to identify and aggressively prosecute those of its citizens who use foreign money to influence a national election. And this is at least the second time that the Obama administration has deliberately compromised the ability of the Israelis to defend themselves. Recall that it was Obamas White House, in spring, 2012, which leaked information about a deal that Israel had worked out with Azerbaijan to use Azeri airfields if it decided that its security required an attack Irans nuclear facilities. (See, www.non-intervention.com, 2 April 2012)

The Israelis will not attack the United States, of course, but a well-merited retaliation against America is simple enough to execute and probably will be. Netanyahus government can cut back on whatever intelligence is shared with the U.S. intelligence community; continue to pass sensitive U.S. technologies to other nations; pick up the pace of recruiting penetrations of the U.S. governments intelligence and defense communities; and, as always, seek to influence U.S. elections and further corrupt U.S. politics via the money of disloyal Jewish-Americans and their organizations.

What makes matters worse for U.S. security is that this intervention in Israels national security affairs is only a part of the campaign that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inaugurated to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries in the name of spreading democracy, while actually seeking to establish abroad the kind of liberal-authoritarian government they are trying to build in the United States. And Republican hands are not clean on this funding for counterproductive interventionism unless all of them voted against the State Department appropriations that allowed the democracy crusaders Obama and Clinton to fund the disastrous-for-the-United-States actions that follow.

The funding of Iranian oppositions groups, the result of which was scores of dead young Iranians, more Muslim hatred for U.S. interventionism, and less domestic political freedom in Iran.

The funding along with EU funding of opposition groups in the Ukraine that ultimately led to overthrow of Ukraines government; justified Putins annexation of the Crimea to protect Russias national security interests; started a Ukrainian civil war; and inaugurated a U.S.-led Western effort to economically strangle Russia that has created a European environment in which war between NATO and Russia is again being discussed and warned of.

The funding of Egyptian groups opposed to Mubaraks regime, which resulted in Mubaraks fall; the election of an Islamist government; a U.S.-EU approved military coup to overthrow the Islamists ,which restored a Mubarak-like dictatorship; and the beginning of the destabilization of the region that has been, quite literally, an Allah-send for the Islamist movement.

U.S. interventionism always ends up costing America lives and money and earning it enduring hatred and war, and never more so than when it is conducted by reality blind and terminally adolescent theorists like Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I have long argued that the United States has no compelling national security concern that requires more than a nominal relationship with Israel, perhaps an exchange of Consul-Generals, at most. Our current bilateral relations with Israel cost American taxpayers untold billions of dollars that could be much better spent or saved at home; prompted President Bushs Israel-First war against Saddams non-U.S.-threatening Iraq, the intensely negative repercussions of which have only started to be felt; provides one of the half-dozen major motivations for the anti-U.S. Islamism that has grown from Usama bin Ladens 40-man al-Qaeda in 1988 to todays worldwide Islamist movement; and facilitated the opportunity for Israel-First U.S. citizens and their organizations to corrupt both houses of Congress and much of the U.S. political system. For these issues and others, U.S. ties to Israel out to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Preferably they should be cut altogether.

This termination process can and should be done in a publicly forthright, manly, and dignified manner; of course, no one would ascribe such character traits to Obama or any of his senior lieutenants. But the termination of relations must be done solely in the interests of the United States, not in a punitive manner that makes the United States an agent of Israels destruction, although constant U.S. intervention in the Muslim world championed by Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain, Wolfowitz, Graham, Firth, AIPAC, Cheney, all the Bushes etc. has already contributed massively to what seems likely to be Israels inevitable demise.

See the original post here:

Michael Scheuer – Official Site

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer | ePluribus Media

Michael Scheuer Calls For Osama to Attack: Glenn Beck and Fox News Air It Three days before the Fourth of July — a holiday celebrating our nation’s Independence Day — and the reich-wing has stepped up the drumbeat toward insurrection, treason and sedition. Hat-tip to MinistryOfTruth of DailyKos Every Republican member of Congress should be immediately called upon to voice their opinion on this outrage, on the record and in public. Every right-wing pundit and “strategist” — particularly those like Karl Rove, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh — should have to weigh in, publicly and on the record. This is the ultimate incitement of domestic and foreign actions by active enemies during a time of war: it is treasonous, it is seditious, it is wrong on so many levels. In light of all the troops who have fought in our name and to protect our nation “over there” so that we could never again be attacked over here, this unrejected statement made by Schaeur on Fox News is the ultimate slap in their faces. It is the ultimate in dishonor. It is the ultimate un-American sentiment. It is beyond fathomable. Check out the diary by Ministry of Truth for action items, and get involved now — before another Timothy McVeigh, James W. Von Brunn, Eric Robert Rudolph, Dan White, James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald or Scott Roeder. Let’s put the words of Mike Malloy to the test: do Republicans really want our nation to fail? Do Republicans really want us to bear the brunt of another 9-11 or Oklahoma City bombing? They’re worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for Gods sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn’t that clear? Those are the words attributed to Mr. Malloy; they ring too true, now. Let’s put the Republicans in Congress to the real test, and see if they live up to their hype, or to their actions. And in the meantime, let’s ask the FCC and Secret Service to pay Fox and friends a little visit.

Fair Usage Law

January 3, 2017   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – amazon.com

“[Scheuer]’s examination of al Qaeda is a bracing corrective to much that has passed as analysis about the group.” – CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen in the Washington Post “A masterful job at… interpreting what bin Laden is trying to tell America but that has fallen on deaf ears.” – Studies in Conflict and Terrorism “Among the ‘war on terrorism cognoscenti’ in and around Washington, D.C., mere word-of-mouth established [Through Our Enemies Eyes] as required reading for anyone seeking to understand bin Laden, the movement that he cofounded and led, and the profound threat that it posed (and continues to pose) to the United States and to international peace. Accordingly, the book’s reputation spread as a thoroughly reliable, trenchant, and commendably clear exegesis of al Qaeda’s ideology, goals, and alarming ambitions…. The key to success in warfare, the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote, is to ‘know your enemy and you will know yourself.’ In Through Our Enemies Eyes, Scheuer answers the first part of that irrefutable formulation.” – From the foreword by Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow, Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, and author of Inside Terrorism “[Scheuer’s] examination of al Qaeda is a bracing corrective to much that has passed as analysis about the group.” – CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen in the Washington Post “A highly informative analysis.” – The Washington Times “A masterful job at… interpreting what bin Laden is trying to tell America but that has fallen on deaf ears.” – Studies in Conflict and Terrorism “A sobering portrait of Osama bin Laden.” – The Christian Science Monitor “This is a book that all professional soldiers should read since it represents, in significant detail, the views and motivation of one of our primary adversaries, while clearly defining the severity of the ongoing threat.” – Armor”

Fair Usage Law

November 15, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

"Bin Laden should have been dead long ago": Mehdi Hasan on …

In September 2007, in the run-up to the sixth anniversary of the 11 September attacks, Osama Bin Laden released a video message. Addressing the “people of America”, the al-Qaeda leader denounced US foreign policy, from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the invasion of Iraq. He also had a piece of advice for ordinary Americans. “If you want to understand what’s going on, and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us,” he said, “then read the book of Michael Scheuer.” It may have seemed an odd choice, given Scheuer’s past role as head of and chief adviser to the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station, a unit dedicated to tracking the al-Qaeda leader between 1996 and 2005. Scheuer wrote two books on al-Qaeda while working for the CIA – Through Our Enemies’ Eyes (2002) and Imperial Hubris (2004) – both of which he was made to publish anonymously. He quit the agency in November 2004 so that he could speak more openly about Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and what he regards as the US government’s failure to understand the threat from Islamist terrorism, and has since published Marching Towards Hell (2008) and Osama Bin Laden (2011). I meet Scheuer in London and ask him about being named by the terrorist leader in the 2007 video. “I got a call from the agency early in the morning,” he remembers. “Mike, we have a copy of a speech by Bin Laden that the NSA [National Security Agency] just translated,” the CIA official told him. “You’re mentioned in it – but it’s not a threat.” As Scheuer discovered when he watched the video, it was an unexpected endorsement of his writing from his former prey. Paperback sales of Imperial Hubris skyrocketed – as did sales of books by Noam Chomsky, who was also cited as an authority in the al-Qaeda leader’s taped message. Four years on, Scheuer jokes about the connection. “It was bad enough that Bin Laden mentioned me, but to mention me in the same breath as Noam Chomsky . . .” He rolls his eyes. Scheuer, 59, is a lifelong Republican voter. Scruffy, chubby and bearded, he is an avuncular figure, but one with elaborate good manners – he tends to address his interviewers as “sir”. Looking at him, you would find it difficult to believe he once led the CIA’s hunt for Bin Laden. The terrorist leader was little known when the Bin Laden Issue Station was set up in 1996 with the aim of gathering intelligence on him and disrupting his growing finances and activities. Scheuer, who had worked as an analyst on the CIA’s Afghanistan project between 1985 and 1992, was selected as the first head of the unit, and it was soon code-named “Alec Station” after Scheuer’s son. It was also, however, nicknamed “the Manson Family”, such was the relentlessness with which Scheuer and his team of 12 talked up the al-Qaeda threat. So, what does Scheuer think motivated Bin Laden to namecheck him in that video? “He understood that I was trying to kill him, maybe, but he also understood that I took him seriously, I guess.” He pauses. “And he probably liked that.” In his writings and his interviews, Scheuer reliably makes provocative statements about the late al-Qaeda leader. “If there’s such a thing as a Muslim educated by Jesuits, it would’ve been Bin Laden,” he tells me. “Because I was educated by Jesuits . . . [Like them] he matched words and deeds very well. And that’s what worried me more than anything. It wasn’t the rhetoric itself – but he said he was going to do X and he did X. He said he was going to incrementally increase the pain and he did incrementally increase the pain.” Does he see something of himself in Bin Laden – his own “Jesuit” temperament? Surprisingly, Scheuer nods. “Yeah, I do . . . as someone who’s educated [to think] . . . that it’s not enough to talk your religious or moral beliefs, you have to act on them. And that’s exactly what I saw in him as a danger.” What did Scheuer make of the video that showed Bin Laden watching himself on television, which emerged from his compound in Pakistan after he was killed by US navy Seals in May? “It was perfectly in character,” Scheuer says. “We knew he was obsessed with the idea that Arab leaders have to be very well-spoken, and that he spent an enormous amount of time having his texts checked for grammar. And so when I saw him I thought, well, he’s checking how he looks, he’s checking how he portrays himself, in order to improve [his image]. That was my impression based on what I knew about him – but maybe he was just an egomaniac.” Then he shakes his head. “I don’t think so.” Given the way he talks about Bin Laden, I can’t help but ask Scheuer if he admired him. He shrugs. “How can you not have an admiration for a man who kept the greatest power the world has ever seen on tenterhooks for 15 years?” He adds a caveat. “Admiration doesn’t connote empathy or sympathy or support. What it means is what the British used to call a ‘worthy enemy’. Whether it’s a guy like [Field Marshal Erwin] Rommel or, in the United States, a guy like General Robert E Lee, who came closest to destroying the Union. He was a traitor, but someone you had to respect and understand before you could defeat him. Just because a guy is your enemy doesn’t mean he’s a dummy; it doesn’t mean he’s pathological. And who does it hurt if you have an enemy and you say, ‘Well he’s a madman, I don’t have to listen to him’? You hurt yourself.” For Scheuer, Bin Laden was not crazy; he was a rational, ruthless and talented leader, a “modern Saladin”. As he writes in his new biography: “[M]y view of Bin Laden is far out of the mainstream. I have long seen him as America’s greatest mortal enemy; I have never thought it enough . . . to curse him and condemn him simply because his views and faith are antithetical to our values.” His critics have accused him of being obsessed with the al-Qaeda leader. The neoconservative academic Fouad Ajami, reviewing the biography in the New York Times in February, compared the author to Moby-Dick’s Captain Ahab. Does he miss OBL? “How can you miss somebody who wants to blow up your country? You don’t,” he says. Then he qualifies his response: “But I really did enjoy the challenge of understanding what he was up to.” Was the news of Bin Laden’s death a big moment for him? “It was a big moment for America.” But what about him personally? Scheuer doesn’t take the bait. “Well, I’m an American. I think he was a danger to our country. He was never anything more to me than a threat that needed to be taken care of.” What motivated him to write his first two books anonymously while still serving as a CIA analyst? “I wrote [them] because I didn’t think we were getting it. The message [of Bin Laden] was there – it was clear, it was available in English – and yet we still had presidents talking about, you know, ‘Here come the bombers because they don’t like primary elections in Iowa every four years.'” Scheuer was frustrated by his government’s unwillingness not just to understand Bin Laden, but to kill him, too. In The 9/11 Commission Report, where he is named only as “Mike”, he is portrayed as being annoyed by the Clinton administration’s failure to target Bin Laden aggressively in the late 1990s. The fact is, he says now, “we had a chance to kill Bin Laden for five consecutive nights in the third week of May 1999; we knew each night where he was staying in Kandahar. They didn’t shoot at all.” Why not? Were his superiors worried about collateral damage? “Yeah, collateral damage,” he says sarcastically. “The shrapnel might hit a mosque.” He couldn’t contain his rage at the lack of action. “So what I did was write a memorandum to the top 12 or 14 people in the agency. I said: ‘Listen: a) the intelligence is not going to get any better, and b) this is a guy we need to take seriously and if you don’t do anything not only are a lot of Americans going to die, but you’re going to have an ‘intelligence failure’ on your hands.” It was the end of his career in charge of Alec Station. “The agency’s a very small ‘d’ democratic place. You can argue, you can bitch, you can debate, but you cross the line if you put it on paper. And if you put it on paper and put it in an electronic system where it can’t be purged, they really get mad.” On the morning of 11 September 2001, Scheuer was sitting in his office at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, having been reassigned as to the agency’s counter-narcotics programme. A friend called and told him to turn on the television. Scheuer switched it on to watch United Airlines Flight 175 fly into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Did he know instantly that Bin Laden was behind the attacks? “Instantly.” Scheuer says the mood among the rank and file at the CIA’s HQ on the day was one of anger. First, because “Bin Laden should have been dead long ago”; second, because it was clear from that moment that politicians and the media would blame the attacks on an “intelligence failure”. Scheuer believes that weak, short-sighted and incompetent politicians should take their share of the blame – chief among them the former president Bill Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger and his counterterrorism tsar Richard “Dick” Clarke. “Bill, Dick and Sandy helped to push Americans out of the windows of the World Trade Center on that September morning,” he wrote in 2006. Does he regret making such an inflammatory statement? Can he really believe that? “They did,” he says in a low voice. Does he think Clinton was worse than George W Bush when it came to handling the threat from Bin Laden? “I think they were both terrible presidents.” Yet, in Bush’s defence, Scheuer says that between the end of the Clinton administration and 9/11, “we didn’t know where Osama was”. This, he suggests, makes Clinton more culpable. But didn’t Bush exacerbate the terrorist threat by invading Iraq? “Oh, absolutely,” he says. “Iraq moved Osama and al-Qaeda from man and group to philosophy and movement.” And he hints, ominously: “I don’t think we’ve begun to see the disaster Iraq is going to cause in the years to come.” Scheuer also blames the Bush administration for the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment. “The Islamophobia in the United States is directly attributable to the [Bush] White House, because of the endless lies about ‘Muslims hate us because we’re free, because there’s women in the workplace, because we drink beer’. And the American people say, ‘Well, if that’s true, we’ve got to be afraid of them.'” In Marching Towards Hell, he excoriates the Democratic and Republican “bipartisan governing elite”, who are equally to blame, he believes, for the west’s failure to defeat al-Qaeda. He has little patience for the successors to Bush and Blair, Barack Obama and David Cameron: their advocacy of regime change in Syria and implementation of regime change in Libya, he says, make them “recruiting sergeants” for the next generation of terrorists. Nonetheless, he is full of praise for Obama’s handling of Bin Laden’s killing. “There is no taking away from him for doing the right thing. We’ve become so used to the American president not doing the right things in terms of protecting his country that it’s a great change.” Does he not think Bin Laden should have been tried in a court of law for his crimes? “It would have been hard to try him. If you tried him, he was going to be speaking to the Muslim world from a courtroom for two or three years.” I ask him the $64,000 question – is US foreign policy to blame for the rise of al-Qaeda and its affiliates? His answer is cryptic: “I believe it is the chief means by which the United States can extricate itself.” Later he explains: “We have given birth to a movement – through the invasion of Iraq and through our inability to cope with the fact that so many people in the Muslim world, whether or not they’re willing to pick up a gun, regard us as malignant because of our policies.” His critics say it is too simplistic to blame foreign policy for suicide terrorism against the US. Even if the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and disengaged from the wider Middle East, wouldn’t there still be groups of Islamist terrorists bent on causing harm to the west? Scheuer concedes the point, but contends that it would then be “a manageable problem”. “I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to blow themselves up because my daughters go to university . . . People are going to come and bomb us because they don’t like what we’ve done.” Scheuer often singles out Israel for criticism, arguing that the US’s “unquestioning support” for the Jewish state’s dispossession of the Palestinians has helped radicalise young men across the Muslim world, boost al-Qaeda’s status and endanger US national security. He has received hate mail and death threats in response, and says: “The anger within the Jewish community in the US towards me is quite extraordinary.” He argues that he was sacked from a post at the Jamestown Foundation in 2009 for his anti-Israeli remarks. Some have claimed – the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat included – that Bin Laden had little interest in the fate of the Palestinians, and that he cynically exploited the conflict after 9/11 to garner support from ordinary Muslims in his war against the west. “That’s a complete lie, sir,” Scheuer counters. “If you read the first thing [Bin Laden] wrote, there are probably nine or ten different references to Israel/Palestine . . . The idea that he was a Johnny-come-lately is completely made up.” Scheuer has admirers on the left and the right. The former quote his views on the link between US foreign policy and the al-Qaeda threat; the latter point to his support for near-indiscriminate military action against terrorist groups, the use of “extraordinary rendition” and CIA special prisons, and his relaxed attitude towards “collateral damage”. “Killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes,” Scheuer insists in Imperial Hubris. “With killing must come a [General] Sherman-like razing of infrastructure.” His argument seems to be that Washington has two options: either it changes its “failed policies” in the Muslim world or it embarks on a mass killing spree against suspected terrorists. He remains unapologetic about this. “America today is one big Israel,” he says. “All it has to defend itself is the intelligence services and the military, because our politicians will not address the issues that are at play.” By the time Scheuer left the CIA in 2004, he had served in the agency for 22 years. How did his wife cope with being married to the CIA’s Bin Laden hunter? “She was always very supportive of what I did. But the toll it took from late 1995 until 2004 was that I missed nine years of my children growing up, from the ages of two and three.” Was it worth it? “It was,” he says. “And it’s certainly not as bad as fathers who went to fight the Japanese or the Germans for four or five years. I wasn’t getting shot at.” He never served as a field operative, instead devoting his intellect and energy to rigorous analysis of his enemies’ words and deeds – a task that he has continued in his “retired” life as an author and academic (he is now an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University, Washington). Scheuer disagrees with former colleagues in intelligence circles who believe that al-Qaeda is in decline, marginalised by the Arab spring and Bin Laden’s death. “I think, potentially, they’re stronger than they were on 9/11,” he says. “On 9/11 they had [only] one main platform, which was Afghanistan.” Whether or not you agree with everything he says, it is hard not to be impressed by his self-confidence and clarity of thinking. I ask him what he would do if he were in charge of his nation’s security. How would a President Scheuer reduce the terrorist threat? You square with the American people. You say, ‘I’m sorry, we’ve been lying to you for 30 years – your daughters can go to school without burqas, you can have beer after work, they’re not going to blow us up for that. But they are going to blow us up because we’re supporting Israel, because we protect the Saudis . . .’ And none of that stuff is necessarily a condemnation of a policy; it’s just an adult view.” But he remains deeply pessimistic. “I think the only thing that changes anything in America any more is calamity. And unless there’s a calamity of some sort, this foreign policy of ours will stay the same,” he says morosely. In an interview broadcast in July 2009, Scheuer caused outrage by suggesting that “the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States”. Ten years on from 9/11, does he still worry that there will be another al-Qaeda attack on US soil? “I think there will be.” Mehdi Hasan is the NS’s senior editor (politics)

Fair Usage Law

October 1, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Ex-CIA Bin Laden chief Michael Scheuer speaks out …

By Kevin Barrett on February 17, 2014 My latest Press TV article Americans speaking out about Israelification of the USA could have cited Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIAs Bin Laden unit in the 1990s. Scheuer has been increasingly vocal about the damage done to US interests by Israeli and Saudi clout in Washington. Below is a transcript of roughly the first third of my two-hour interview with Michael Scheuer. Barrett: (Youve been warning America for more than a decade, but it still isnt listening.) Scheuer: No, they wont listen, sir. The first book I wrote was finished in 1999, and the Agency locked it up for two years because they were afraid it would offend Arabs. It was only after 9/11 that their concern lessened a little bit. Its like yelling into a closet. The American people, God bless em, are just sobadly educated and unaware of how duplicitous their leaders are. Were much worse off today than we were when we started to fight al-Qaeda and its allies in 1995, and certainly infinitely worse off than we were in 2001. And yet our president, Mr. McCainthey all say that the killing of Bin Laden has been the turning point in this war. Americans just dont seem to get the difference between what they are told and what the reality is. If this wasnt a problem, or not the problem it used to be, everyone wouldnt be so upset about the Russians not letting us help out with security in Sochi for the Olympics. Barrett Well, I dont blame them. After Bandar Bush, as hes sometimes called, went to visit Putin, and threatened him with terrorism directed at the Olympics if he didnt support Bandar and the so-called Syrian rebels, who are supposedly on our sideyou know, I wouldnt really want American security help either. Scheuer Well, in many ways I have to agree that to a great extent, our success or our defense depends on being surrounded by two oceans. And its rather hard to get in here on airplanes at the moment. But whats slowly happening is that I think we will see young American Muslims, who we have assumed the so-called melting pot would take care of, will be attracted to the same sort of propaganda, the same sort of rhetoric, that has been so appealing to Muslims in Europe and Africa and of course across the Middle East. And well be fighting this war at home increasingly over the next decade, fifteen years. Barrett Well, Im Muslim, by the way. And my sonI guess you could call him a certain kind of radical American Muslim. Hes a radical libertarian Ron Paul supporter kind of guy. (laughter) Scheuer As am I! Though Im a Roman Catholic. But the point I was trying to make is that its a sort of an arrogance to assume (a) that everyone is the same and will be affected by the same assimilative pressures or interests, and (b) that religion has nothing to do with whats going on. There would be no problem if this was not a religiously motivated jihad or war or whatever you want to call it. The fact that our leaders wont even take than on board as a possibility is really going to be fatal to America in so many ways Barrett Lets back up for the listeners who havent done their homework on this even some of my listeners may miss some of these things and talk about the gist of your analysis of whats really at stake here. Youre saying that this whole propaganda wave weve been washed in since 9/11, about how theyre coming after us because THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM, and they dont like the way our women dress and this sort of thing, is all nonsense. And there are some very straightforward and simple reasons why there is a worldwide insurgency in the Islamic world. Scheuer Yeah, Kevin, I have to say that if the Muslim world was upset with us for women with short skirts, or Budweiser beer, or early primaries in Iowa, the threat wouldnt even rise to a lethal nuisance, probably. They certainly wouldnt have those things in their countries many wouldnt, anyway. What theyre mad about is what were doing, what our government is doing in the Muslim world what I call intervention. Becoming involved in countries where we really have no interest, where we really dont have anything to do with teaching people anything. Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama have taken this war of civilization to a higher level. And weve moved away from simply using military power. Now were involved in trying to teach these people how to be good, secular Westerners. Barrett And at the same time were supporting al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria. Whats that about? Scheuer Its aboutal-Qaeda has known for a long time, sir, that all they have to do, all al-Qaeda and their allies have to do, is find someone who shaves, wears a suit, speaks a little English, and can be pushed out in front of them, and keep saying the word democracy. The American leadership will fall in line, and do al-Qaedas work for them. Weve provided the air support for their takeover, or partial takeover, of Libya. If Putin hadnt saved our bacon, we would have done the same thing in Syria.We would have helped get rid of Assad, allowed the murder of a million Alawites, and put the jihadis in power. So itsthis is certainly a lost generation of leaders. Ive often thought that if America survived my generation (I was born in 1952) I would be very grateful. Barrett You and I have pretty similar reactions to these seemingly utterly senseless post-9/11 policies, and even pre-9/11 for that matter. But it seems like youre totally devoted to the incompetence theory: That the reason our politicians have done exactly the wrong thing at every step along the way has been pure stupidity. You did have a line though, I think its in Marching Toward Hell: Only madmen and perhaps a few neoconservatives and Israel-firsters would have sought these consequences. Only madmen and neocons! Those may not be mutually exclusive categories. (laughter) But when I look back and see that you were prevented ten times from taking out Bin Laden before 9/11and then 9/11 happens and BOOM, the policies are Lets try to drive the Islamic world even crazier, lets murder even more millions of Muslims, lets do everything we can to ENCOURAGE this worldwide insurgency And who does it benefit? Scheuer It doesnt benefit anyone. Except our politicians in both parties think it will keep them in power. And theyre so politically-correct. That has gotten to be such a trite and overused phrase, but, my God! I dont think these people are stupid. I would prefer it if they were. What I contend is that theyre liars. They all have better educations than I had. I didnt get to go to Harvard or Princeton or any of the Ivy League schools, or to Stanford. All of these people were educated there. The abundance of information thats available about the motivation of our Islamist rivals, or our Islamist enemies if you prefer, is extraordinary. We havent had enemies since Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, and before that Adolph Hitler, who were so willing and eager and desperate almost to tell us what they were mad at, why they were mad about it, and what they were going to do. Unfortunately for America, we could tolerate fools and stupid people, but the choice is only between being a liar, and being a worse liar, sir. These people know exactly what the problem is. The Muslim world doesnt hate Americans as people. Ive traveled extensively, during the course of my career, in the Muslim world, in both the Middle East and South Asia. And invariably, the courtesy that was extended to us, to me, was extraordinary. And the appreciation for Americans and their generosity in times of natural disasters and other kinds of problems is very great. But inevitably, the question comes over dinner, or over tea: Why are you supplying the Israelis with F-16s to kill Palestinian young people? Why are you supporting the police states that run, take your pick Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the rest of the Gulf countries? Muslims are not stupid people. Thats one of the assumptions we make at the official level in Washington, in America, is that they cant differentiate between Americans and their government. And the focus of Muslim hatred is not on Americans. It is definitely on the United States government. And we are the essential ally of the most violent, most militaristic part of the Muslim community around the world: the jihadis. Barrett Thats a good point. One metaphor Ive sometimes tried to use, which would frame it very differently from the way you frame it you frame it by focusing on the jihadi element but the thing is, Mike, that in the Muslim world, the vast majority of people feel very, very strongly about some of these issues, with what I would call the genocidal Zionist occupation of Palestine being number one. And we all pretty much feel that way. Or the vast majority do. And I think were objectively right on this. Before I even came to Islam, I knew enough about Israel-Palestine to know that the Palestinians are right: This is a completely absurd crime that has been committed against them. So my metaphor would be that this is like the civil rights movement in the 60s, where obviously this group of people is being oppressed, theyre obviously totally right about the issues theyre angry about. And then you have this very tiny, tiny segment of this vast number of people who want to change things and get their fair share, their rightsa tiny number are willing to commit violence. So by focusing obsessively on that tiny number who are willing to commit violence, and reacting badly or over-reacting that might make the problem worse. If (in the 1960s) someone had said, well, were going to have to kill huge numbers of black people because of this and youve said things a little bit like this in some of your books if they had, wouldnt there have been even more black people who got mad enough to go out and cause trouble? Scheuer Well, I certainly think thats true. But we have to realize that this is a war. This is a war of global dimensions. At least from my perspective, the idea that you dont kill people because theyll get madder at you is sort of nonsense. Its absolutely true, but its absolutely irrelevant. And its irrelevant because the leadership of this country the academic leadership, the media leadership, the political leadership of this country, and to a great extent much of the religious leadership of this country has created a situation in which we deny the existence of the problem. And for that reason, the only tools were bringing to bear to defend ourselves are the intelligence services and the military. And America has never won a struggle, a war, with just those two entities. What are they good for? Theyre good for killing. And if thats all youre going to do, youre going to have to kill an enormous number of people. Many more today than in 2001. And thats the box America is in. Until we can be adults and say, listen, they dont care if we vote early in Iowa, they dont care if my daughter goes to university. What they care about is our intervention in their world: Our support of the Israelis, our fifty years of support for tyrannies in the Middle East. Whatever it is, thats what motivates them. And until we address the motivation, in our own minds at least, and at least accept that thats what their motivation is, we have no choice but to kill people. No matter what the impact is on the rest of the world. Because ultimately you have to defend yourself. Barrett Right, butlets step back and ask, what are the real US interests in the Middle East? Do we need to support Israel? Do we need to prop up these dictators? Scheuer Well, certainly, I have argued consistently over the course of four books that neither Palestine nor Israel is of the slightest bit of concern to the United States. And one of the reasons that struggle goes on is because of our constant intervention in favor of the Israelis. If we hadnt been backing the Israelis ever step along the way, there would have been some kind of settlement by now, or some kind of solution to the problem. But ultimately, from an American perspective, if every Palestinian died, or every Israeli died, or both of them, there would be a lot of empathy, a lot of sympathy, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but at the end of the day, to American national interests, it wouldnt matter a bit. It wouldnt make any impact on us at all. To me, the support for the Israelis is a twofold disaster. It involves us in a war with a civilization that really doesnt have a desire to fight us, except for the fact of our intervention on behalf of the Israelis and others. Secondly, it corrupts our domestic political system to a point where several years ago, five hundred members of our Congress gave 29 standing ovations to Netanyahu after our President laid out a position that was in direct contradiction to Netanyahu. Barrett Yeah, I couldnt believe that. Scheuer Im afraid Ive been inside of this beast for so long that I was hardly surprised. Although the numbers that were attending that meeting were somewhat stark. But these peoplethe problem for America is not Israel. The problem for America is the American Jewish community, or that portion of it that are dead enders, that are maximalists, that sit here in America with their children, their homes, their jobs, their happy fat bank accounts, and bankroll the extremists who run the Israeli government. Thats the danger to Israel. Thats the danger to the United States political system. Barrett And youre getting more and more forthright about saying that. And the usual suspects, the neocons and the hard-line Zionists, have really gotten upset with you lately. Scheuer Well, not lately. Almost since the day I resigned and began to speak out. Barrett But they get more hysterical all the time. Scheuer They do. Theyre a little bitI dont know if theyre unstable, or just frenetic. But they are extraordinarily vicious people, in terms of what they write to me, in terms of what they write to my employers, in terms of what they put in public print. But at the end of the day, theyre defending an indefensible position. Theyre defending, in many respects, a position thats absolutely treasonous to the United States, and incompatible with being an American citizen. Barrett Thats a great point. I dont quite understand how they get away with it. Including the dual citizen issue. We just heard Stanley Fischer, whos going to be number two at the Fed apparently, is a proud dual citizen who has announced it in public. And this is, I guess, a new precedent. Weve been told that a lot of the other high-level people, people like Perle and Wolfowitz and so on, may have been dual citizens as well, but theyre not telling us. Is there some kind of policy about allowing people with a declared loyalty to a foreign country to be in high-level foreign policy positions? Scheuer Of course there is! There are rules, there are laws against that. You can take your choice. If you want to be an Israeli passport holder, thats fine, but youre no longer an American citizen. But just like so many other laws, whether its under Bush or Obama or Clinton or the first George Bush you can go back four presidents they only enforce the laws they want to. I think its unconscionable. You cannot get a passport from another country, you cannot get a passport from America, without swearing allegiance to the United States or to the other country. Any American citizen who holds a foreign passport, whether its an Israeli passport, an Irish passport, a Lebanese passport, an Armenian passportwhatever it is, should immediately be cashiered out of any kind of position of trust with the US government. And forced to make a choice. They are either going to be an American citizen or theyre going to be an Israeli, Lebanese, whatever-youd-like citizen. They cant be both. Im not a strong religious person, but I think its very clear you give to Caesar whats Caesars. You cant serve two masters. Barrett I think its become more and more clear, especially since Walt and Mearsheimer put out their book, that this really is the issue: US support for Israel is not, as people have been saying for many years, because Israel has been helping us as our cop in the Middle East; they come up with all kinds of stories about why this is supposed to be helping the US. But obviously all its doing is making us huge numbers of enemies. Scheuer Its interesting to watch, I think, the US Jewish community from a distance of just me observing them. They may be the first part of the melting pot thats un-assimilating. Its very clear: They send their children to join the Israeli military instead of the US military. They are opting out, really, of any part of American society that doesnt agree with them that Israel is somehow as important, or more important than the interests of the United States. Barrett I had Gwyneth Todd on my show awhile back. And she, Im told, served on the National Security Council at the time that Richard Clarke was also on the Council. And she had some rather uncomplimentary things to say about Richard Clarke. She said and I had this confirmed by someone else that he was caught spying for Israel by the FBI, and that made him ineligible for some positionI forget what the position wasand then he got booted upstairs to the National Security Council, AFTER hed got caught spying for Israel. Have you heard anything about this? Scheuer I havent heard anything about that sir, no. But I have to say that Israel probably has the best espionage system of any foreign country in our country, because so many people turn a blind eye to it. If you question anything that an American Jew does, or that Israel does, youre immediately an anti-Semite. Look at what this baseball player from Milwaukee did, when he failed the drug test for steroids Braun, Ryan Braun. He immediately accused the person who took the test of being an anti-Semite. What happened? He got off the hook the first time, until they proved it definitively. It is an all-purpose marginalizer of people who question the relationship between the Israelis and the United States. And it is the ultimate, next to the word terrorism, debate stopper. Barrett Right. I learned that the hard way myself in the academy. Its really the ultimate taboo. And its strange how it works. Because the Zionist Jewish people are not exactly a poor powerless oppressed group. And yet thats kind of the way its played that its terrible to say bad things about the poor powerless oppressed minority types. And heres a group thats got double the average income of non-Jewish Americans, thats totally dominating foreign policy, and yet theyre benefiting from the same kind of protection we think were affording to poor oppressed powerless minorities. Scheuer Theyre really the only ones who can publicly flaunt their disloyalty to America and be applauded for it. But Ill tell you one experience I had. Israel is not the only one. When I worked for the CIA, if we were gathering information, or some kind of a collection effort that was benefiting the United States but really didnt have any pertinence to another foreign country, if the Israelis found out about it, or if the Saudis found out about it, and you refused to share the information with them because it really had nothing to do with them, or their national security, they were the two countries on earth who could call the White House, bypass the intelligence community, and get the White House to order the release of that information to them. As bad as the Israelis are, at least theyre public about it; you can see their disloyalty. But the Saudis are very quiet. Theyre very rich. They use their own money instead of our money to bribe us. And theyre very good at collecting former senior intelligence officers, diplomats, generals, businesspeople, and putting them on the payroll of Saudi Arabia after theyve retired to lobby our government. Its a dirty, ugly business. And I wish there were some way to end it. But I dont know how to do it.

Fair Usage Law

August 22, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Mike Sarne – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Sarne (born 6 August 1940) is a British actor, writer, producer and director, who also had a brief career as pop singer Mike Sarne. He is of Czechoslovakian descent.[1] Sarne was born Michael Scheuer at St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, London. Active in the 1960s as singer, he is best known for his 1962 UK novelty chart topper, “Come Outside” (produced by Joe Meek), which featured vocal interjections by Wendy Richard.[2] He had three more releases which made the UK Singles chart: “Will I What?”, in 1962, which featured Billie Davis; “Just for Kicks”, in 1963; and “Code of Love”, also in 1963.[3] In the mid-1960s Sarne introduced the ITV children’s quiz series Junior Criss Cross Quiz. As an actor he has appeared on television, in British series including The Avengers, Man in a Suitcase, Jonathan Creek and The Bill. Sarne also appeared in an episode of Minder as Billy Beesley, an amateur safe blower. His film credits include a starring role in the 1963 film A Place to Go with Rita Tushingham, directed by Basil Dearden, and he also appeared in Invasion Quartet (1961), Every Day’s a Holiday (1965), Two Weeks in September (1967), Moonlighting (1982) and Success Is the Best Revenge (1984) for Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski, and the Hercule Poirot film Appointment with Death (1988). He also played an SS captain in the TV miniseries War and Remembrance (1988). He later appeared in The Fourth Angel (2001), as Valery in the crime thriller Eastern Promises (2007), and in 2011 he was the voice of Karla in the spy film Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. In 2012 he played Father Mabeuf in the film of Les Misrables.[4] Films he has directed include Joanna (1968) and Myra Breckinridge (1970), an adaptation of Gore Vidal’s book of the same name, starring Raquel Welch, Rex Reed, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett in her first big screen role. Joanna broke even at the box office, but Myra Breckinridge was a major box-office flop and drew such critical hostility, his career never recovered. A more recent film is The Punk and the Princess (1994), an adaptation of Gideon Sams’ young adult novel The Punk, about the romance between a teenage punk rocker and a Sloane Ranger girl. He also directed a documentary about the Glastonbury Music Festival in 1995. He attended the School of Slavonic and East European Studies earning a BA.[5] Sarne had a relationship with Brigitte Bardot only a few days after her honeymoon with Gunter Sachs.[6] He has 5 children: Claudia and William from his 19691978 marriage to Tanya Sarne, founder of the designer label Ghost; and Emma, Abigail and Sarah with second wife Anne Musso, whom he married in 2004 in Chelsea, London.[7] His brother, David Scheuer, had a brief acting career in the 1960s and 70s.[citation needed]

Fair Usage Law

June 26, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

About Michael Scheuer and Non-Interventionism | Non …

Why non-intervention.com? For a long time, it struck me as quite egotistical and probably arrogant to think that I had anything to say about contemporary U.S. foreign policy and the perils of its relentless interventionism that would merit a website of my own. And to tell the truth, I still have doubts that (a) I have much to say that is insightful on the issue and (b) that anyone will much care what I have to say. Still, I have had a good number of responses positive and negative to what I have written on foreign-policy issues since I resigned from the CIA in November, 2004. Since that date, I have been privileged to have had the opportunity to write for Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com. I want to offer my thanks and sincere appreciation for the space they gave me, and to say very clearly that by starting my own site, I am in no way criticizing those sites. Indeed, I should be most pleased not to say shocked if this site has anywhere near the substantive success or level of interest Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com have achieved. That said, I finally decided to try a site of my own because I am not fully committed to an unyielding anti-war position. I certainly do believe that we are engaged in far too many wars; that most of them are unnecessary; and that almost all of them are the consequence of Washingtons rabid post-1945 interventionism. To the extent that Washington under both Democrats and Republicans stops intervening in overseas affairs that are of neither genuine concern to the United States nor threats to U.S. interests, we will find ourselves in far fewer wars. And I might add, in passing, that if Americans begin to aggressively insist that all wars in which their country becomes engaged must per the Constitution be formally declared by the vote of Congress, we would likewise have far fewer wars. But I do believe some wars are both necessary and unavoidable; indeed, I believe that human beings are hard-wired for war; that they are not perfectible; and that the only mercy in war is an enormous application of military power that wins victory for the United States in the shortest possible time. At present, the only war that falls into the necessary and unavoidable category, in my view, is our war against al-Qaeda and the growing Islamist forces it leads and inspires. Motivated by Washingtons interventionist policies in the Muslim world, that foe declared war on America in August 1996. Sadly, we have yet to find a U.S. political leader in either party who will forthrightly accept the fact that we are at war with the Islamists; nor have we found one who will tell the American people that we are at war because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world unqualified support for Israel, support for Arab tyrannies, invading Iraq, etc. and not for who we are and how we live here in North America. Today, Americans are rightly suspicious of calling our struggle with the Islamists a war because they again rightly cannot believe that people would wage a nearly 14-year war and gladly die in the conflict because American women go to university, there are early primaries in Iowa every four years, and many of us have a beer or two after work. The consistent lies of our last four presidents, leading generals, much of the media, and nearly all of the academy They hate our freedoms, not what we do have misled and blinded Americans to the very real threat the Islamists pose to domestic security in the United States and some of our interests overseas. My primary interest, then, in starting this website, is to discuss the almost totally negative impact of Washingtons bipartisan lust to intervene abroad, as well as to talk about how interventionism undermines U.S. security, the nations economy, and our countrys social cohesion. I also think it is appropriate to discuss here how far we have strayed from the Founding Fathers vision of what America and Americans should be at home and how the republic should conduct itself in the wider world. This site will argue that the Founders recipe for safeguarding America in 1789 remains pertinent today: all Americans must be vigilant of their liberty; politically active in its defense; broadly educated to help assess politicians, policies, and foreign entities that threaten that liberty; and armed to defeat enemies, foreign or domestic, who threaten that liberty. It will quickly become clear that I am not an original thinker on these issues, but rather a person who was educated with, and is loyal to, the ideas of those brilliant and far-seeing men who founded our republic. I look forward to presenting my ideas and commentary on this site, and, even more, I look forward to considering, discussing, and learning from the responses of my fellow citizens.

Fair Usage Law

June 18, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer (Ex-CIA): President TrumpA Chance Worth …

Originally posted January 25, 2016. Former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer announces, Is there an America-First enemy of interventionism among the presidential candidates? I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves. (a) The United States can break the Islamic States back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls (b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war. Dr. Scheuer next takes a look at Republican and Democrat presidential candidates and examines what each has to offer. On Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby. On Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an outsider in this bunch, they are all members actual or aspiring of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bushs deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the New World Order. On Donald Trump: Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, Americas worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration. Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking. Related video: 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

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Is there an America-First enemy of … – Michael Scheuer

All this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will. Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791-92 Even in the midst of his destabilizing intoxication with the French Revolutions madness, Thomas Paine still was able to peer into the future and accurately describe the state of the U.S. government and the republics political system in 2016. And no truer words could be spoken about contemporary Americas foreign-policy disaster than Paines point that the defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will. In his recent State of the Union address, for example, President Obama asserted that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Islamist movement do not pose an existential threat to the United States. Obama would have been 100-percent correct if he had been speaking when al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996. The reason that the Islamists are now, without question, an existential threat lies in the war-causing interventionism of the past four presidents and their administrations, as well as their cowardly refusal to win the wars they started. Of the four, Obama stands out for special condemnation, as no single Muslim could have done more to promote the confidence, geographic spread, and numerical growth of the Islamist movement. It is these national government actions that have motivated and nurtured the Islamists, and they will remain and grow further as an existential threat to the United States until the citizenry elects a president who puts America first by calling a halt to unnecessary overseas interventionism, and engages in wars only when America is attacked or narrowly defined U.S. national interests are at clear and indisputable risk. I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves. (a) The United States can break the Islamic States back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls in Syria and Iraq, and and if we wait much longer probably Libya. After doing this, the U.S. government can withdraw all of its military assets from the region, announce that U.S. forces are not coming back to save anyones bacon, and advise the sixty-plus other countries in Obamas coalition to align with the Saudi coalition and destroy the remaining Islamists. Because the Saudis and their coalition support most of the non-IS Islamists and probably some of the IS ones this scenario will quickly lead to a regional Sunni-Shia war in which our enemies will merrily kill each other until well after the cows come home. (b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war. As this savagery evolves, Americans must do all that is necessary to secure the republics position in North America close borders, deport all illegal aliens, temporarily stop all immigration, etc. Again, this is not a complicated problem: the United States must utterly destroy the Islamist enemy and then leave the region, or the United States must leave the region and end its unnecessary, war-causing, and always ineffective interventionism and let the Islamists take on their main enemies, Muslim tyrants, Israel, and the Shia. For twenty-five years, however, the U.S. government has done neither. It has waged war in a half-way (half-assed?) manner and lost two wars, an exercise in foreign-and-military futility that has succeeded in enriching an environment in the Islamic world that is intensely anti-U.S. government, yielding enormous growth in the Islamist movement, and convincing many millions of Muslims that the mujahedin can win because their success so far demonstrates Allahs approval of their efforts. Given Americas limited options and with time to make a choice running short, the 2016 presidential election is acutely important because it may be the last chance for Americans to make the choice described above before getting sucked into catastrophe in the Middle East. Sadly, only one of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates seems to offer anything other than more of the same war-causing measures. Lets have a look. Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby. She and Obama are responsible for the Libyan invasion, which in a year or so will produce the same kind of problems and perhaps worse as those produced by the Hillary-supported, George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. She also seems to be a chronic liar, an influence peddler, and an enemy of U.S. national security. Bottom Line: President Hillary Clinton = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, continued open borders, and the potential spectacle of a sitting president and perhaps her husband being convicted and imprisoned for an array of crimes. Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley: These two characters provide the 2016 campaign with a reliable and more than ample supply of the putrid-and-nation killing breath of warmed-over 20th century socialism and communism. Perhaps forgetting how those creeds bred authoritarianism (anyone recall National Socialism in Germany?), one-party rule, the mass murder of dissenters, and the destruction of the economies of Eastern Europe, Central and South America, much of Africa, Russia, India, and China, Sanders and OMalley represent an enormous step backwards in their effort to make todays America into the Eastern Europe of the 1950s. Neither seems as corrupt or criminally inclined as Mrs. Clinton, but they offer nothing except a Bolshevik-made blueprint that ensures minority rule and Americas demise. Sanders, in particular, can never be permitted to assume the presidency. But on foreign policy they both are establishment Democrats, they want to make the rest of the world democratic, feminist, and secular and that can only be done despite Sanders claim that he prefers diplomacy with more and more war. Bottom Line: President Sanders or President OMalley = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, a weaker military, more minority rule, deeper debt, more taxes, less liberty, continued open borders, and more presidential diktats. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an outsider in this bunch, they are all members actual or aspiring of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bushs deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the New World Order. Bottom Line: President Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Kasich, or Bush = More of the same from the Republican establishment; that is, more America must lead prattle, more war, more dead Marines and soldiers, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, and continued open borders. Rand Paul: This is the best and most specific conservative candidate on a combination of issues, including the debt, the Federal Reserve, the return of constitutional governing, reducing tax rates, right to life, and protecting the 2nd and 4th Amendments. On foreign policy, however, his websites softly spoken statements suggest complete support for Israel which means endless war with Islam and the continuation of U.S. alliances, apparently meaning an array of Sunni tyrannies on the Arab Peninsula and in the Middle Wast and NATO and its expansionism which means endless war with Islam and possibly unnecessary conflict with Russia. Perhaps most troubling, the website does not seem to have a discussion of the vital importance of reestablishing a U.S. foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention; indeed, I could not find those words on the website . Bottom Line: President Paul = More of the same Republican interventionist foreign policy and so more war, debt, taxes, dead Marines and soldiers, and precious little time to work for the return to constitutional government. Donald Trump: This candidate has given few details about his views on foreign policy, save that he will be tougher on Mexico and China, will deport all illegal aliens and close the border, and will stop making the kind of free trade agreements that kill U.S. manufacturing and so the ability of lower-income Americans to move into the middle class. He also suggested that if America is forced to go to war to defend itself he will use U.S. military forces to annihilate the enemy. He has given no indication that he would intervene abroad unnecessarily or launch offensive wars, like those in Iraq and Libya. All of this sounds good, but he must speak more clearly and with conviction if he wants voters to believe that he will unlike his Republican and Democratic competitors make foreign-policy decisions solely on the basis of what is best for Americas relatively few and never abstract national interests. What is most intriguing and encouraging about Trump is that he is not politically correct, he is admirable in his ready combativeness, he speaks like an American not an effete and clueless Ivy-League theoretician, and he is making enemies of Americas most dangerous internal enemies. On the last point, watch Foxs Brett Baier and his usually excellent Special Report each evening and there you will see George Will and Charles Krauthammer twist every question posed to them in a way that permits them to defame and pour vitriol on Trump. And then listen to one of the Grand Masters of disloyal Israel-First-ism, Bill Kristol, who has long passed the apoplectic stage in his hatred of Trump and his staying power in polls of Republican voters. Finally, look at the large number of former U.S. general officers who have endorsed Jeb Bush. These men and their still serving colleagues have lost every war America has fought since VJ Day in 1945, and not one has shown any qualms about getting their young Marines and soldiers killed or maimed in wars they know their president does not intend to win. Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, Americas worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration. Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking.

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – Official Site

This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about Israels right to exist is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A states ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive to genuine U.S. national security interests. That said, Israel and all nation-states have an absolute right to defend themselves in the manner they deem mandatory for their survival. In the now-dying Western democracies that defense includes the process of national elections to choose national political leaders. For a foreign nation to interfere in such elections as the disloyal U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters and Mexican governments routinely do in U.S. elections is to undermine the intervened-in nations absolute right of self-defense. The Obama administrations State Department apparently identified disloyal Israeli citizens in Israel and transferred to them at least $350,000 for to use in a campaign meant to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in the recent Israeli election. Such intervention is tantamount to an act of war, just as it is criminal negligence for any government to refuse to identify and aggressively prosecute those of its citizens who use foreign money to influence a national election. And this is at least the second time that the Obama administration has deliberately compromised the ability of the Israelis to defend themselves. Recall that it was Obamas White House, in spring, 2012, which leaked information about a deal that Israel had worked out with Azerbaijan to use Azeri airfields if it decided that its security required an attack Irans nuclear facilities. (See, www.non-intervention.com, 2 April 2012) The Israelis will not attack the United States, of course, but a well-merited retaliation against America is simple enough to execute and probably will be. Netanyahus government can cut back on whatever intelligence is shared with the U.S. intelligence community; continue to pass sensitive U.S. technologies to other nations; pick up the pace of recruiting penetrations of the U.S. governments intelligence and defense communities; and, as always, seek to influence U.S. elections and further corrupt U.S. politics via the money of disloyal Jewish-Americans and their organizations. What makes matters worse for U.S. security is that this intervention in Israels national security affairs is only a part of the campaign that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inaugurated to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries in the name of spreading democracy, while actually seeking to establish abroad the kind of liberal-authoritarian government they are trying to build in the United States. And Republican hands are not clean on this funding for counterproductive interventionism unless all of them voted against the State Department appropriations that allowed the democracy crusaders Obama and Clinton to fund the disastrous-for-the-United-States actions that follow. The funding of Iranian oppositions groups, the result of which was scores of dead young Iranians, more Muslim hatred for U.S. interventionism, and less domestic political freedom in Iran. The funding along with EU funding of opposition groups in the Ukraine that ultimately led to overthrow of Ukraines government; justified Putins annexation of the Crimea to protect Russias national security interests; started a Ukrainian civil war; and inaugurated a U.S.-led Western effort to economically strangle Russia that has created a European environment in which war between NATO and Russia is again being discussed and warned of. The funding of Egyptian groups opposed to Mubaraks regime, which resulted in Mubaraks fall; the election of an Islamist government; a U.S.-EU approved military coup to overthrow the Islamists ,which restored a Mubarak-like dictatorship; and the beginning of the destabilization of the region that has been, quite literally, an Allah-send for the Islamist movement. U.S. interventionism always ends up costing America lives and money and earning it enduring hatred and war, and never more so than when it is conducted by reality blind and terminally adolescent theorists like Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have long argued that the United States has no compelling national security concern that requires more than a nominal relationship with Israel, perhaps an exchange of Consul-Generals, at most. Our current bilateral relations with Israel cost American taxpayers untold billions of dollars that could be much better spent or saved at home; prompted President Bushs Israel-First war against Saddams non-U.S.-threatening Iraq, the intensely negative repercussions of which have only started to be felt; provides one of the half-dozen major motivations for the anti-U.S. Islamism that has grown from Usama bin Ladens 40-man al-Qaeda in 1988 to todays worldwide Islamist movement; and facilitated the opportunity for Israel-First U.S. citizens and their organizations to corrupt both houses of Congress and much of the U.S. political system. For these issues and others, U.S. ties to Israel out to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Preferably they should be cut altogether. This termination process can and should be done in a publicly forthright, manly, and dignified manner; of course, no one would ascribe such character traits to Obama or any of his senior lieutenants. But the termination of relations must be done solely in the interests of the United States, not in a punitive manner that makes the United States an agent of Israels destruction, although constant U.S. intervention in the Muslim world championed by Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain, Wolfowitz, Graham, Firth, AIPAC, Cheney, all the Bushes etc. has already contributed massively to what seems likely to be Israels inevitable demise.

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   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."