Replies

It's a shame that this book became such a tool of the left during the campaign. I've almost finished with it, and as you can see by the interview the author skewers as many sacred cows on the left as the right. This is a guy who thinks we're not fighting the War on Terror hard enough.

I especially love that the leftist interviewer tries to shoehorn the terrorist problem into a neo-Marxist construct ("it must be poverty that makes them become terrorists!") and refuses to consider the un-PC idea that it's religion that makes them kill themselves. He also labors under the fanciful notion that diplomacy and "humanitarian" aid is the key to fighting the terrorist. The left is really living in another universe, and thank God these people aren't running the War (yet).

In any case, I don't agree with Mr. Scheuer that denying the terrorists state sponsorships (Iraq) is a waste of time. He also seems to want to back off from Israel significantly, and that bothers me.

But this guy has a lot of interesting things to say. Thought-provoking article - hope you enjoyed it.

I don’t know what the answer is going to be in the long term to what’s going on in Iraq.

OK. So let me get this straight... Scheuer has no idea what the right steps should be, he just knows were taking the wrong ones.

Since I don't like the idea of nuking Israel and paying $200 a barrel for oil, I think I'll throw my hat in with Bush's plan; kill them in Iraq rather in NYC. We didn't start the belligerence and the U.S. didn't put the Shah of Iran or the Royal Saudi family in power. They can't blame our government for dealing with theirs.

Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel,

Fair enough, from their perspective, although I suspect it's mainly a scapegoat to allow them to ignore the problems they create for themselves.

our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers

Doesn't seem to be working terribly well, does it?

our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean

If we deal with a dictator they hate us. If we overthrow a dictator they hate us.

What exactly would he recommend be our policy towards these governments? His criticism is remarkably free of specifics.

our support for Putin in Chechnya

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Sorta, anyway.

"I realized early on that the academy and the literary world alike , and I don't think there really is a distinction between the two , are always dominated by fools, knaves, charlatans and bureaucrats. And that being the case, any human being, male or female, of whatever status, who has a voice of her or his own, is not going to be liked." . . . Harold Bloom

Methinks politics should be added to this. I love it when the "experts" who have been in charge of something . . . like Scheur was of the bin Laden "bureau" in the CIA, when NOTHING was done to rein him in either literally or figuratively . . . then comes out and attack those who actually have the courage to take action instead of "discuss it to death."

I've seen several interviews with this worm on TV . . . he belongs in the class of those whores most despicable -- Someone who would not raise their voice against a Government's failed policies when they were in a position to do so because they were enslaved to the financial trappings provided by their employer but as soon as the Government changed to a philosophically-different, target-rich environment and their task-masters approved of their "anonymous" rantings to embarrass said Government . . . they willingly and eagerly stepped up to the plate.

Cliff Notes version . . . when Scheur was an embedded CIA employee and the tactics he is "said" to disagree with would embarrass Pee Wee Clinton's Administration, hence his Liberal, CIA bosses refused to give their approval . . . he said nothing. He showed his courage was the kind of "paper-courage" we've come to expect of Liberals. He would've been far, far more believable . . . and his criticisms far more trusted . . . had he resigned his CIA position in, say, 1998, and then aired his dirty laundry . . . like a TRUE Patriot would've done.

But he didn't . . . he showed his patriotism took a backseat to his CIA career -- THE MONEY.

Then he penned his "masterpiece" anonymously . . . when it was enthusiastically approved by his CIA Masters . . . where it was timed to inflict maximum damage on GW's Adminstration -- THE MONEY.

Then he finally quits the CIA, comes out of the closet, and hits the interview and book-signing circuit . . . just before a National PRESIDENTIAL Election -- THE MONEY.

Scheur certainly registers as the Untimate Political Whore in my book . . . perhaps Heidi Fleiss would take him on because anyone who reads ANYTHING this Situational Whistle-Blower has to say MUST view every word through the glasses of a cynic. Scheur has shown every word has been about one and only one thing to him . . . THE MONEY.

Some may accept the idea that these terrorists act as they do in reaction to US foreign policy. Personally, I believe they use any bogus excuse as "justification" after the fact. Bin Laden never said a word about the Palestinians until his henchmen were flushed from their caves in Afghanistan.

Even if you accept the premise you still need to make a choice. Do we:

Conduct our foreign policy according to our principles and interests or;
Allow terrorists to exercise preemptive veto power over our foreign policy.

If you chose the first option, you are where we find ourselves today. If you chose the second, you have surrendered to the most despicable people on Earth. Every religion and civil code of justice since and including the Ten Commandments has conceded the right of innocent people to live. These terrorist don't. Killing innocents is just a means to an end. They are the antithesis of civilization. They are subhuman.

Personally, I'd rather we fight than surrender.