Replies

No, you are missing the point. Just because someone is a "former" anything doesn't give him "creds."

You can be plugged into info and be totally wrong---look at some of Omar Bradley's decisions during WW II, or McClellan during the Civil War: he had Robert E. Lee's entire battle plan in front of him and analyzed it 100% WRONG.

Your ideology DRIVES how you interpret info. If you think that the "Joos" are behind everything, you will constantly draw the wrong conclusions. This is another turd that needs to be flushed from the CIA. The very fact that he can't keep secrets puts his "creds" in doubt.

Your comments are right on target. Analysis and interpretation are done from a standard base. It is the agenda, or sometimes the lack of agenda (utter confusion), that determines how the analysis and interpretation is done and how this moulded intel is used.
The distribution of this material is part of this predetermined agenda. Who it is sent to, when it is sent and how much of it is sent all plays into the game.

If Scheuer put out 100 pieces of analysis intel and 95 were complete BS, it is still wrong to automatically discount the other 5. Even 'dezinfomatzia' - disinformation can be critically analyzed and have its uses.

IMO, Scheuer knew his game was closing. He capitalized on it by writing some books. Nothing new or unusual about that. The list of 'former intelligence' people who have done this is long. From what I have read he made his higher-ups aware of his doings and his material was vetted and approved for printing. I imagine this will continue for a while.

And yes, I agree, better off with him out of the company and with the spotlight on him. His 15 minutes may last for a few years. He has contacts in an area of the world that is going to be very active for quite a few years to come.

We will probably hear more from Mr. Scheuer.