Media Blames War In Iraq For Terrorism ( El Rushbo Piece That Featured Scheuer And Schlussel Alert)

RUSH: We're going to keep going with this. I mentioned earlier in the previous hour that even last night in the media, that the template on this al-Qaeda attack in Jordan is, "It's Bush's fault. Bush caused this. Bush is responsible!" So we played connect the dots in the first hour of the program. Just to review that, when you connect the dots, what do you get? You have Jordan. You have three suicide bombers. You've got 57 people dead so far; over 300 people wounded. You have terrorists. You have the culture of death, the expressed desire to end western civilization. Any normal person, rational person connecting these dots concludes we got a serious global war on terror and we have to win it or else. That's what I get when I connect the dots. But when liberal Democrats and the American left connect the dots, they see a campaign issue.

The very same people who have been demoralizing the US troops, saying, "Oh, we support the troops," but then undermining the commander-in-chief, undermining the mission, trying to say, "The mission is unjust; the mission is unnecessary. All of this is a pure fabrication! Bush lied," all of these lies, and now, all of a sudden, they care that we're not fighting the war on terror correctly when they can't point to very many instances of themselves actually being for it when they mean it. So to the media last night -- let's go to Hardball with Chris Matthews talking to Michael Scheuer ( web | news ), a former covert CIA officer about the bombings in Jordan. Now, I was referring to this the other day too. You used to never see this. Ex-CIA officers being allowed to write books? But I guess you can write books now if you're an ex-CIA covert officer if your books are going to attack the administration. So Matthews says, "What's this attack in Jordan tell us about where we stand in the world, the war on Iraq; its relevance to this, et cetera."

SCHEUER: By invading Iraq we've basically signed the death warrant of Jordan and much of the Levant. It's another example of no one reading what bin Laden said. Bin Laden prizes contiguity above all things, an area where he can operate from safe haven into another country, and he did that--

SCHEUER: Exactly right, sir. We created his bastion to get to an area he's never been able to work against, which is the Levant: Israel, Egypt. He now has safe haven to operate from there.

RUSH: Well, okay. So I guess what we have here is Iraq caused the bombing as if there were no bombings anywhere before Iraq, there were no terrorist actions against Arabs anywhere else, never happened before, until we went into Iraq? What's this business about we gave Osama a safe haven in Iraq? Now, I know I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but has anybody ever alluded to the fact that bin Laden is there? No. They know Zarqawi is there and he's a bin Laden agent I suppose? Well, should we then have not gone into Afghanistan and routed him out of there? You know, bin Laden's MO has been to go take over countries that have no governments, that are basically stateless. That was what he was doing in the Sudan, that's why he went to Afghanistan. The best intel now is that he's in the Afghan/Pakistan border or someplace even in Iran. Some people even think that. But no matter where the guy goes, he's the winner in these people's minds. No matter where he goes we forced him there and we can't capture him so he's still running the show. He's running a safe haven. We're creating all these problems. It's Bush's fault. Another sound bite, same show. Just brace yourself for this one, because this same former CIA agent says that in the final analysis, we'd all be better off -- Jordan would be better off; everybody would be better off -- if Saddam were still running Iraq. Question from Matthews: "Just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running that country right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?"

SCHEUER: There would be many more dead -- many fewer dead Americans, and we would have had many more resources available to annihilate al-Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a doubt, in the war against al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.

RUSH: Okay. So who are we fighting in Iraq? Well, that's the point! We're fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq but we wouldn't have been fighting them there if we hadn't gone there. We could have fought them wherever they are. The problem is, they're everywhere! We now know they're in France. We now know they're in Australia. We now know that they're in Jordan and they're in Malaysia, they're in Singapore. They're in the Philippines. Militant Islamists are in Chechnya. They're all over the place. There are 70 countries that al-Qaeda cells are working and operating out of -- 70 different countries! That's what we were told back in 2001. Now, all of a sudden, they're all in Iraq and this is somehow a bad move. Saddam Hussein was our best ally, one of our best allies in the war against al-Qaeda. This is the major spin going on. Now let's go to C-SPAN this morning. Washington Journal, Susan Swain is the host; she's talking to David Cole. David Cole's a Georgetown University Law School professor. Caller calls in. Caller says, "Over 50% of the people in that region -- according to ABC, CBS, NBC polls, over 50% of the people in that region believe that bin Laden is a good man. Over 50%. They support him in what he's doing. Those are huge numbers."

COLE: Those statistics have gone up significantly since September 12th, 2001. People didn't support Osama bin Laden when he attacked us. People supported us when we attacked us. But because of the way that we've responded, our numbers have gone -- have plummeted downward and his numbers have plummeted upward. That's the point. These kind of tactics only undermine our security by strengthening their side. So what a terrorist wants more than anything else is to goad the country that it attacks into acting in ways that undermine that country's image and undermine its strength in the world. And that's exactly what we've done. We have played into their hands.

RUSH: This is unbelievable! The rewriting of history here taking place is just amazing. It's being done by professors, media people -- people who have a responsibility to get things right, to impart information to other people in a factual manner, and so now we were loved when we didn't do anything about it. We were loved when we sat there and took it. We were loved when 3,000 Americans were killed, and we were loved when we just sat around and didn't do anything about it for about three weeks. But then when we attacked, when we defended ourselves, all of a sudden, they started hating us. Well, what kind of silly-ass logic is this? Does that mean to be loved we're supposed to sit around and just continue to be attacked every now and then and not do anything about it? We're not supposed to be able to defend ourselves? We defend ourselves and, "Oh, that's going to gin up world hate." Does this not sound like the democratic campaign of 2004? Does this not sound like exactly what Rockefeller and Kennedy, et al., have been saying for the last three years?

"It's our fault! We did this! Had we come up with a different way of responding..." what would that be? Go to the UN and ask for a resolution? What other way of responding would there be, after all of this? But there you have it, my friends, the liberal take on this. I have a vague memory, and this is why I can't claim this to be factual, but I've got a vague memory. I think Zarqawi is Jordanian. Well, I know that. Zarqawi is Jordanian, but I think that he once tried to attack that country and failed. Is that true? (interruption) Okay. He is. Okay. My memory is factual on this. He did. This could just be an attempt to do what he failed to do the first time. But he knows these guys are not idiots. They know that their enemy is going to get blamed for this. I think these guys, wherever they are in their caves or in their mosques have to just be sitting back and laughing themselves to death every time Kennedy or some elitist professor from Georgetown like this guy or David Rockefeller opens his mouth. Here these guys attack, they blow up innocent people, and they know that the American left is going to blame America. They know that their enemy is going to get blamed for this in the worldwide media.

RUSH: I got to hear this CIA guy again, folks, because some things have popped into my head. This is from Hardball last night with Chris Matthews, and he asks -- the guy's name is Michael Scheuer. It's S-c-h-e-u-e-r. The question is: "Tell us about where we stand in the world, the war in Iraq; its relevance to this, et cetera?" This guy's a former covert CIA agent. Keep in mind as you listen to all this, who is now writing books and going on television talking about US foreign policy.

SCHEUER: Oh, well, by invading Iraq, we've basically signed the death warrant of Jordan and much of the Levant.

RUSH: Stop right there. That's the point, because my memory is true Zarqawi is Jordanian. In fact, Debbie Schussel tells me that Zarqawi is Jordanian Palestinian, a Jordanian Palestinian -- one of the 70% of the population that Rockefeller is so concerned about. So one of the 70% blew up his own country, so to speak. But if he did try to attack Jordan back in the '90s, that's long before we had done anything to Saddam Hussein. Well, we left him in power. Saddam Hussein was still in power and running his country. So the idea of linking this to what we did in Iraq is just absolute BS. Now, let's go to the next bite, because it gets even better. Question from Mathews: "Just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running that country right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?"

RUSH: Okay. Who is this guy, folks? He's a CIA agent. Former covert CIA agent. So he just got through saying that "by invading Iraq, we signed the death warrant of Jordan and much of the Levant," and sounds to me like he was opposed to invading Iraq. Doesn't this tell us what's going on at the CIA? This guy's a former covert agent. He's out now. Starting to put some more dots together here, connect some more dots. This kind of also tells us how out of it the CIA was, does it not? If this guy's representing CIA thought and think on this, does it not indicate just how off the mark the CIA has been on all this from the get-go? Better off with Saddam in power? He was one of our allies against al-Qaeda? This is a former CIA covert agent saying this. The guy should have stayed under cover because he's lifting the veil of secrecy on the kind of thinking going on. I don't know if he worked with Valerie Plame or not. She had a desk job. Speaking of which, speaking of which, thanks to the church committee, we have no more human intel. We can't go out and hire reprobates and human debris toe infiltrate groups of other human debris. We replace those people with Valerie Plame. We replace those people with desk jockeys.

Thank you, Frank Church -- and now we bring the whole US government to a stop because Valerie Plame's name is out, yet here's a former covert agent out there writing books about the CIA's operations and thoughts -- and he's celebrated as a big-time hero because he's obviously anti-Bush. Debbie Schussel just sent me a note. This sound bite we played from David Cole, the Georgetown University law professor, in which he said basically it's the way we responded to 9/11 that made the world hate us. Debbie Schussel tells me that this man was once Sami Al-Arian's attorney. The name Sami Al-Arian ring a bell? They just had closing arguments in his trial yesterday in Tampa. This was a computer professor at a Florida University who was undercover working as a fund-raiser and leader in this country of the Islamic Jihad. So interesting when you start connecting these dots what you actually get - and how does it differ from those in the mainstream press and the Democratic Party.

Guess who Saddam Hussein's new defense team is? Why the CIA's old hand Lefty Michael Scheuer and the Democratic Party. You gotta marvel at the MSM's orgasms over their condemnation of our involvement in Iraq. Why, if we had never gone in there - Saddam would have been our ally and kept Osama Bin Laden and Musab al Zarqawi out of Jordan and the Levant. The way the Left rewrites history and totally ignores its earlier view Saddam was a threat is just amazing to behold. Today, their view is on account of America's going into Iraq, why - that's the reason we're hated by the rest of the world. Its like 9/11 never happened in these folks' minds. With the Left, its like an alternative universe, along with the template constructed by their MSM allies to sustain it.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

ON THE NET...

http://www.truthusa.com/911news.html
http://www.truthusa.com/911news2.html
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html

===
===

ON THE NET...

http://www.inatoday.com/media%20bias%20costs%20soldiers%20lives%20111005.htm

"MEDIA BIAS COSTS SOLDIERS' LIVES"

NOVEMBER 10, 2005
By Toby Westerman
Copyright 2005 International News Analysis Today
www.inatoday.com

"The troops see that, they see that very clearly," Patterson observed.

ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Recently returned from visiting U.S. armed forces in Iraq, Patterson expressed to INA Today his concern about the media and political manipulation of the Iraq war. While troop morale remains high, U.S. military personnel are, nevertheless, dismayed at the image the established media convey to the American public regarding their efforts in Iraq.

Some troops believe that distorted media reporting is a greater threat to their personal safety than direct enemy attack, because the message the media give to the public encourages terror gangs to redouble their efforts, Patterson told INA Today.

Patterson noted that the troops are disturbed that positive developments, including the passage of an democratic Iraqi constitution - the first such event in that nation's 5,000 year history -- receive little attention, and are never permitted to disturb an otherwise dismal image painted by the established media journalists.

Al Qaeda carefully watches and reacts to U.S. public opinion, and considers media image an extremely important aspect of their military effort, Patterson told INA Today."

Note how the MSM is calling these 'American Hotels'. They are not. They are owned by American based companies that are now actually International Companies. The MSM is trying to brainwash the sheeple into believing this attack on 'American Hotels' was actually an attack on America, which is was not. The Islamic extremists are cornered. They are on the run. They cannot attack America so they are forced to attack Hotels owned by American Based Companies located within Islamic States. This is backfiring on the Islamic Terrorist big time.

It appears now that the leftist pro Saddam French Aligned CIA cabal operatives are using the MSM to brainwash the sheeple into believing our War on Terrorism is losing when it actually is winning. No major attack on US soil since we began our counter offensives. From now on when the MSM complains that we are losing the war, we should rejoice because it actually means we are winning the war.

Apparently the MSM has determined what it wants engraved on it's headstone. Here Lies the Propagandists for the Leftist CIA Cabal.

Thanks so much for the ping, BC (and for all of the Rush pings).

I believe I heard Rush say during this segment of his show today (Thursday) that Michael Scheuer, this former covert CIA officer, was "head of the bin Laden desk" during 1998-99. I can't confirm he said this... did you hear it also? This would be during the time that Klintoon refused - several times - to bring bin Laden to the US from the Sudan.

Why didn't Bush clean house with CIA? Was he expecting to be a 'uniter' by getting his dad and Bill Clinton to work together? It seems there will be no peace for Bush because of the Democrats losing both elections... their pride in their own superiority won't allow for it. It's all about getting Bush to fall on his ass, not about world peace, democracy or any other important issue. They can't beat him with new ideas, so they are trying to bring him down with every sleaze tactic available. Come to think about it, the democrats also have to clean house if they're thinking about winning the next election .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.