Michael Scheuer Watch #13: Guilt by Association
11.14.2007 - 11:54 PMWhy has the National Alliance endorsed the work of former CIA officer Michael Scheuer? NatAllNews.com, the best “single source for worldwide pro-White news,” presents some choice quotations from our hero here.
Why has David Duke endorsed the work of Michael Scheuer? The former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard explains why in “More Americans Becoming Immune to Zionist Propaganda.”
Why has the National Alliance endorsed John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s paper on The Israel Lobby? The Alliance explains why in “Jews Run American Foreign Policy, says University Researchers.”
Why has David Duke endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt’s work? Duke explains why in “Stop Cowering to the Jewish Supremacists!”
There are many dots here.
1. The National Alliance has endorsed Scheuer.
2. Duke has endorsed Scheuer.
3. The National Alliance has endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt.
4. Duke has endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt.
To these four dots, we can connect two more:
1. Scheuer has endorsed the work of Mearsheimer and Walt.
2. Mearsheimer and Walt have endorsed the work of Michael Scheuer.
Connecting the Dots has two questions for readers:
What do these figures all have in common? How many separate lines are required to connect each of these dots with one another?
The author of the first correct answer will win a free copy of Michael Scheuer’s forthcoming book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. To enter the contest, simply send the correct answer along with a stamped self-addressed envelope to Connecting the Dots at this address.
A complete guide to other items in this Michael Scheuer Watch series can be found here.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
November 15th, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Gabe: as impressed as I am at the level of detail and analysis in this series, I must say — even as one who has commented a few times in this ongoing investigation — that I’m beginning to wonder if spending this much time on a kook like Scheuer and his fringe websites and occasional quotes in the press are not playing into his oversized ego and hate-filled agenda. After all, there are many Scheuers in the world, but other than Ron Paul, who on the national stage is still taking him seriously? Are Democrats in Congress listening to him? I could well be wrong here, but I’m seeing much less of him on CNN and other MSM outlets.
I understand Scheuer’s unique role as someone who rose fairly high up in the CIA and is now a public commentator pushing his view that both major parties are run by AIPAC, that Israel is the biggest problem in the world, etc — but he’s become a very minor figure now. His classic anti-Semitic rant is shared by many folks on the fringes of society, and even (in nicer, cleaned-up forms) by far more powerful players than he: Pat Buchanan, a few dozen Congressmen, and to a lesser degree people like James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Lee Hamilton, who I don’t think are anti-Semites but who are obsessed with Israel’s putative power over American foreign policy.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Scheuer writes about ‘defensive Jihad.’ He approaches 911 and the terrorist threat from his opponents eyes. The problem is ‘his’ insertion of the adjective defensive. Any cursory read of leading Jihadist thought realizes their is no defensive prior to the word Jihad. HIs thesis would be like talking about ‘defensive kosher’ cooking and the like.
Sadly, it may be his obsession with Israel. The Saudi lobby gets little mention in his writings… as contrasted to ‘the lobby.’ Obsession with Israel is one thing, but to insert an adjective prior to Jihad is simply not reality-based thought. I am making no slur against Islam. I’ve actually brought up the term ‘defensive Jihad’ to a Muslim friend of mine. His eyes rolled. The adjective ‘defensive’ is a Scheuer construct.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Jon,
You can tell by the fact that Scheuer is releasing another book that he does not intend to be, or remain, a marginal kook on fringe websites.
He plays on his credibility as a hard-talking hawk who thrashes bureau-weenies and self-serving cowards on both sides, but in the end his message is the same as any secular leftist–
DROP ISRAEL. Let it fall, abandon it, break agreements, blind yourself to simple moral decency, embrace the rage-boys and blame the good guys.
I don’t care how much you want Osama killed… this certainty that ISRAEL is the problem and abandonment is the solution tells me all I need to know.
Scheuer is not as marginal as I wish he was, and if he is successfully marginalized, it is the work of Schoenfeld and people like him who will accomplish that.
Keep it up, Gabe. We can’t afford for time to put cotton in our ears about Scheuer.
Dave in Texas
http://davogrande.blogspot.com
November 17th, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Dave — I agree with you on what Scheuer’s game plan is, I just question the level of attention he’s getting and whether he truly is someone we need to take seriously. He clearly relishes all the attention he gets from his enemies, but that is no reason not to focus on him, I admit; I guess I think he is more marginal than you and Gabe do, but we’ll see: if his new book gets more than 15 seconds of attention from the MSM, and if his sales do well, then I’ll surrender!
November 19th, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Prepare to surrender Jon. You can guarantee he will get a BookTV slot, a CNN exclusive, and more chances to be on Q&A panels as the Iran situation heats up to a broil. In January you will see him on 15 out of 30 nights I’d wager…on some news network or another.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:57 PM
And it’s no coincidence that his new book comes out in 2008. Yet another in a long line of timed attempts to influence major elections.
This year he’s early, but maybe he just wanted to be first in line.
Dave in Texas
http://davogrande.blogspot.com
November 28th, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Jon, I believe that Schoenfield’s debunking of Scheuer is not only important, it’s a must. There are way too many people that give credibility to his work. For example, here in Finland at the Finnish Institute of Foreign Affairs (UPI), one of their WMD analysts, a Brit named Toby Archer runs a blog that mentions Scheuer as an authorative voice:
http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/search?q=scheuer
I for one wish that there were more people of G.Schoenfeld’s stature that would take the time to debunk those who fail to pass the credibility test, and whose “expertice” is accepted by policy makers at face value.
Best regards,
*L* KGS