Michael Scheuer Watch #2: Osama bin Laden’s Favorite Pundit
09.08.2007 - 8:34 AMOsama bin Laden’s latest video is very peculiar, and not only because he is sporting a fake beard.
One of the oddest moments comes when he recommends that Americans read the works of two authors, Noam Chomsky and Michael Scheuer. Scheuer, who ran the CIA’s al-Qaeda unit from 1996 to 1999, has been making a great name for himself as a counterterrorism expert since leaving the agency in 2004. Among other high-visibility perches, he serves as a “consultant” to both CBS and ABC News and is cited frequently by leading journalists.
The question is: is bin Laden’s endorsement of Scheuer’s books good for this pundit’s career? Although one should never underestimate the media’s lack of curiosity, my own guess is that it is going to hurt, and hurt badly.
Bin Laden’s endorsement is not the direct reason. Rather, the increasing attention it will bring him will also bring him increasing scrutiny. And scrutiny is not something Scheuer will easily withstand.
Along with a number of others, Scheuer has endorsed the findings of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the extraordinary influence wielded in the United States by the “Israel Lobby.” But Scheuer, explicating his views on a show called Antiwar Radio, goes much further than even they do. He believes that the machinations of the Israel Lobby are supplemented by the efforts of Israeli intelligence, which is “very active in the United States.” In fact, Israeli spies are “popping up all over” and they “do whatever they want inside of America and no one carries them to task for it.” Indeed, because both the Democratic and Republican parties are “owned by AIPAC,” the U.S. government “consistently tries to suppress any kind of publication” of information pertaining to the Israeli espionage.
This is already lunatic-asylum territory, but there is more. According to Scheuer, there is an ongoing “Israeli covert-action program” under way to silence defenders* of the Mearsheimer-Walt book. The results, says Scheuer, have been “stupendous.” In public, the Israelis didn’t have to raise a word—that’s the way covert action works, he helpfully explains—but the result of their behind-the-scenes manipulation is clear: in the attacks on Mearsheimer and Walt, “Americans are savaging other Americans in defense of a foreign country.”
I have previously written about Scheuer’s bizarre ideas and behavior in the pages of COMMENTARY. In the latest Weekly Standard, I examine how the CIA’s own Inspector General has evaluated Scheuer’s work as a counterterrorism operative. It turns out that as the CIA officer charged with the principal responsibility for countering Osama bin Laden, Scheuer was a walking calamity.
Osama bin Laden has a collection of excellent reasons, it would seem, for praising this American spy turned pundit.
*Corrected.
A complete guide to other items in this Michael Scheuer Watch series can be found here.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
September 8th, 2007 at 9:30 AM
From the horse’s mouth on the CIA:
General Haydens Remarks at the Council of Foreign Relations September 7, 2007 (About 12 typewritten pages.)
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/general-haydens-remarks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Highlights:
We are at war:
“First, our analysts assess with high confidence that al-Qa’ida’s central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the US homeland.
Second, they assess—also with high confidence—that al-Qa’ida has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability. That means safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, operational lieutenants, and a top leadership engaged in planning. Al-Qa’ida’s success with the remaining element—planting operatives in this country—is less certain.
Third, we assess—again, with high confidence—that al-Qa’ida is focusing on targets that would produce mass casualties, dramatic destruction, and significant economic aftershocks.”
Leaks on CIA sources and methods have hurt national security;
“In one case, leaks provided ammunition for a government to prosecute and imprison one of our sources, whose family was also endangered. The revelations had an immediate, chilling effect on our ability to collect against a top-priority target.
In another, a spate of media reports cost us several promising counterterrorism and counterproliferation assets. Sources not even involved in the exposed operation lost confidence that their relationship with us could be kept secret, and they stopped reporting.”
On the Marty Report:
“Case in point: a European Parliament temporary committee has claimed that, and I quote, “at least 1,245 flights operated by the CIA flew into European airspace or stopped over at European airports between the end of 2001 and the end of 2005.” And it said so in a context that implied that many—or even most—were rendition flights.
The actual number of rendition flights ever flown by CIA is a tiny fraction of that. And the suggestion that even a substantial number of those 1,245 flights were carrying detainees is absurd on its face.
What did some of these flights carry? It could be equipment to support our people in the field. Documents that we’re sharing with our allies. Maybe even me.”
September 8th, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Sir,
I again appreciate Mr. Schoenfeld drawing attention to my written work, the validity of which has more than stood the test of time vis-a-vis other writers and journals, particulary that of COMMENTARY.
In regard to my CIA record and whatever the CIA IG may have said about my performance, I have no objection whatsoever in having the CIA publish whatever it believes appropriate to publish about my performance. Moreover, I invite Mr. Schoenfeld and his other Israel-first friends to encourage the Congress’s intelligence committees to call me to testify publicly and under oath before them on thiose issues.
In reciprocity, perhaps Mr. Schoenfeld could have the Israeli government release an appraisal of his ongoing work in deceiving Americans and defaming such quality scholars as Walt and Mearsheimer.
Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, Virginia
September 8th, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Having characterized Michael Scheuer thus:
Scheuer has endorsed the finding of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the extraordinary influence wielded in the United States by the “Israel Lobby.”
This sentence in the analysis of Gabriel Schoenfeld leaves me scratching my head.
According to Scheuer, there is an ongoing “Israeli covert-action program” under way to silence critics of the Mearsheimer-Walt book. The results, says Scheuer, have been “stupendous.”
Wouldn’t it be more logical for ‘Israel covert action programs’ to encourage, rather than silence critics of the purportedly anti-Semetic Mearsheimer-Walt book?
When you write a public blog you have to not only run spell check, but also do a little ‘does this make sense’ checking too, otherwise people like me wonder really how competent your analysis is.
Conversely if the mistake isn’t that of Schoenfeld’s analysis then it must be by bin Laden’s new favorite ex-CIA operative, Michael Scheuer.
There’s enough confusion already in the world without adding to it. Help your readers out.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Hello - I am the owner of the Osama Family website http://www.saudi-binladin-group.com…. The news this week announced that the Binladin family has dissociated itself from the Osama. Strangely enough the Binladin family website expired on the very same day which their estranged son and brother attacked the united stated. This family’s website expired on 9-11-01 - the same day of the US terrorist attacks. Proof and facts are at saudi-binladin-group.com…. This can also be proved from various online articles (including Wired Magazine) , discussion groups and research tools such as dialog.com. This is a little known bit in the media, but is very verifiable and is a fascinating and rarely documented part of the 9/11 story. Moreover, over the last several years, I have placed an email server which has harvested megabytes worth of email intended for Binladin brothers, corporate correspondences and even strange “Osama fan letters. I dont feel that the website was a “countdown” as some have speculated in other news groups - however, I feel it is an interesting and weird coincedence in the many stories that make up 9-11 and the Binladin family.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Well, that Chomsky doesn’t even merit a second mention - and for good reason - I suppose that does imbue Mr. Scheuer with a degree of validity.
More to the larger point however, Chomsky is easily dismissed because he has already been considered in the public mind, and dismissed. That Mr. Scheuer is in the same company as Chomsky, and in context as being a favorite author of bin Laden seems to put him on the same road to irrelevance.
Next stop, guest speaking slots at Holocaust denial meetings, and an honorary memebership in any number of anti-Semitic secret societies.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:39 PM
If OBL had recommended my “scholarly” work, I ‘d be a bit more circumspect about bragging about it. Instead, having been taken apart by Gabriel Schoenfeld once again, most recently in the Weekly Standard, Michael Scheuer pokes his head out of his hole to raise the charge of dual loyalty (e.g., “Israel-first friends”) against those who shine a little light on his past work and present proclamations. Would that he were half as diligent when he was supposedly protecting us from the gathering Islamist threat as he is at exposing the nefarious Israeli plot to dominate and direct American foreign policy. Has the Peter Principle ever seen such validation?
September 8th, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I hold no big stance one way or another on the Israeli lobby, I don’t know enough about it, but I know there have been at least two people already busted either for direct espionage with Israel or disclosing unauthorized information to AIPAC. Given certain neocons’ affection for Israel and its pet causes like Iranian dissidents and making the world safe for Israel, I don’t understand why this is lunatic asylum territory. A safe democratic or at least militarily neutral Iraq primarily benefits Israel, after all, and if the US involvement in giving Iraq a freebie democracy means neglecting menaces in its own hemisphere as they grow and fester, well, too bad. It’s like Israel’s safety always needs to come first, according to certain pro-Israel policymakers and if using the US to defend Israel’s interests above its own is the way to do it, then that’s the right thing to do. No judgment, it just seems like this is what is going on. When was the last time a Chavista spy was arrested on these shores?
September 8th, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Mr.Scheuer, I see you are laudably willing to testify publicly about your CIA record. I noticed, however, that you did not offer to testify about any extra-curricular political statements you have allegedly made that might call into question your overall objectivity as a past or future national security analyst. Personally I’d take the risk of having you showcase your extensive anti-Israel credentials before a nationwide (indeed, international) audience, but something tells me you are too self-protective to divulge then fully under oath and on quite such a public stage. On Fox’s Hannity & Colmes and The O’Reilly Factor, for example, you studiously avoid showing your full hand. Yet, if indeed Israel and its ersatz-American fifth columnists are clandestinely ruining this country’s relations with otherwise reasonable jihadis or gratuitously enraging the tolerant Muslim world, the public has a right to know about it. If fearless truth-tellers like yourself are being remorselessly hounded by unscrupulous Zionists, that should be on the record, too. Of course I assume you would cheerfully endure cross-examination on these in addition to more narrowly professional matters. I certainly wouldn’t complain if you sold more books or furthered your public standing as a result of such a “teaching moment”. And I hope the American Jewish Community, the Evangelical Christian Zionist Community and their Israeli puppet masters wouldn’t object either. As for your “reciprocal” request that the Israeli Government bear witness to Mr. Schoenfeld’s wide-ranging and nefarious powers, I would be enormously entertained by that spectacle too. I would love to see high Israeli officials declaim on his central role in their longstanding cabal. And let me be pitilessly frank here: Anything, and I mean anything, that distracts the current Israeli Government from its diplomatic screwups would more than earn its keep.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Another thought: Scheuer ought to be beet red at the thought of his work being used by Bin Laden to spread threats and terror. Regardless of its merit, it’s now Bin Laden’s justification for making war on us, something that wasn’t in play when the terrorists first struck the Twin Towers. Today, Binny Boy is yawping that ‘Jews run America’ and claiming that gives him a license to kill but back when the 9/11 terrorists struck, the justification was that the problem was ‘US soldiers on Saudi bases’ and ‘Let’s destroy the American economy.’ Israel had nothing to do with that.
The world would be a lot better place if the Israelis didn’t keep trying to get illicit privileged information from its biggest aid donor and persuading it like some big dumb lunk to go do its fighting for it in Iraq and Iran, but that’s neither here nor there. They do it, worse countries (try China) do it, and sometimes they succeed.
What’s worrisome is that now Bin Laden is using this as his justification to make war on us. He’ll win some morons to his side as a result. He’ll be politically strengthened. He’s got new talking points that will be talked about and talked about. More fanatics will get excited. Is that the result Scheuer wants? It’s a diversion with the sole aim of diverting our attention from him.
If there were never any Israeli espionage or de-facto Israeli agents in the national security establishment, this wouldn’t be possible. Israel ought to be more circumspect in its US reach. But Scheuer ought to be way louder in condemning Bin Laden than Israel. He ought to be mortified that Bin Laden is using his work to justify terror. The Israeli activity can be stopped with more arrests and through yanking its aid as it fully deserves. Making it pay its way for once would be the right way to deal with these ungrateful meddlers. Bin Laden is a different matter though. This monster made war on us and can only be stopped through killing or being killed. It’s a much bigger issue.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Mr. Scheuer, having toiled in the bureaucracy too many years for a low wage and slender recognition is now in the “accumulation phase” of his career. At the moment, OBL’s citation of him as an authority is not objectionable–after all, consistent with his revised life, Mr. Scheuer’s attitude must be, “I-don’t-care-what-you-say-as-long-as-you-spell-my-name-right.” He may have been an indifferent (or worse) employee while at Langley, but he’s a shrewd observer of popular culture. He knows that in our time, celebrity rules. For some, it’s OJ or Paris Hilton; perhaps for the foreign policy crowd, it’s W&M, Ward Churchill, or Mr. Scheuer himself. However, celebrity should not be confused with talent–or honor. An honorable man would have resigned from the Agency before allowing himself to be used by higher-ups and winked at in order to publish, against regulations he had sworn to uphold, a book under the no-name of Anonymous. An honorable man would be screaming now that his putative arch-enemy, the man he was presumably paid to hunt down, now recommends praises him. But Mr. Scheuer is not an honorable man, and in a less vulgar time, he would have been relegated to some John Birch Society file. UBL has been useful for Mr. Scheuer–gave him his first platform, his credentials, “made his bones,” so to speak. And now Mr. Scheuer has become useful to OBL. Other than that and the Jews, I can’t think of anything else these two have in common.