Skip to comments.Ex-CIA Man Uncovers Jewish Conspiracy!
Posted on 02/11/2005 11:37:32 AM PST by JohnathanRGalt
Remember Michael Scheuer? He's the former CIA analyst who penned an anonymous book called "Imperial Hubris" attacking the Bush administration's approach to terrorism. When we last saw him, in November, he was explaining to Tim Russert that American support for Israel is to blame for anti-American terrorism, and that Osama bin Laden is "in many ways . . . an admirable man."....
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
|Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
|Posted by Jim Robinson
On News/Activism 01/08/2005 5:36:28 PM PST
|Deputy chief resigns from CIA (CIA Said to Be in Turmoil Under New Director Goss)
|Posted by crushelits
On News/Activism 11/12/2004 9:27:00 PM PST
|Uncertain Trumpet: Imperial Hubris is an alarming book.
|Posted by Unam Sanctam
On News/Activism 11/16/2004 5:34:42 PM PST
|'Imperial Hubris' Claims Iraq Invasion 'A Gift to Bin Laden' (BARF ALERT)
|Posted by chambley1
On News/Activism 06/28/2004 4:05:02 AM PDT
|The Secret History of Anonymous (Author of Imperial Hubris identified)
|Posted by Shermy
On News/Activism 06/30/2004 11:24:30 AM PDT
|Posted by Afghanistanmation
On News/Activism 11/30/2004 5:18:20 AM PST
Have you read Scheuer's book?
No wonder the CIA hasn't produced a reliable piece of intel since the early '70s. If this nutcase is typical, the whole agency is rotten to the core as well as incompetent.
Besides, anyone who believes a "Jewish Conspiracy" is even possible just doesn't get that 1,000-year-old joke that says if you put a dozen Jews in a room you come out with 13 different opinions.
"" 1,000-year-old joke that says if you put a dozen Jews in a room you come out with 13 different opinions.""
Wait, I don't get it. I really really don't.
Yes, I have. He makes many good points (mixed in with sheer blithering nonsense). I've scanned and OCR'd the sections dealing with the terrorist use of the internet (my interest) and am thinking of posting excerpts from the book as "Imperial Hubris: How the CIA Has Been Helping Al-Qaeda Win the War of Terror"
So let's see if we have this straight: The Council on Foreign Relations gives a public forum, hosted by a dean from an Ivy League university, to a guy who expounds crackpot theories about "clandestine" Jewish efforts to control America--including the Holocaust Museum!--and the "debate" is "unbearably restricted"?
And let's remember that Scheuer isn't just any old nutcase. He is, as Lemann said in his introduction, "the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit." The quality of intelligence over at Langley would appear to have been even lower than anyone suspected.
Maybe the theory was authored by cynicom..
Obviously, at least one of the Jews must have had two opinions -- but by the time you explain a joke, it's no longer a joke.
Anywho, here's more related discussions. Michael Scheuer was also the one accusing the CIA of 'torture' in the New Yorker Magazine:
CIA renditions of terror suspects 'out of control:' report-Boiling prisoner suspects' body parts
Yahoo News, Agency France Presse- Later The New Yorker. ^ | FEB 6 2005 | AFP
Why So Glum at the CIA?
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 1/19/05 | Alan Nathan
Investigator: Senior CIA Leaders to Blame for 9/11 Lapses
Newsmax ^ | 1/7/05
Scheuer is all over the place, and has some brutal ideas.
To the simplistic dichotomy it's what we are vs. it's what we do he claims it's merely "it's what we do". This is appealing to lefties hoping to have their "root cause" prejudices affirmed but the book itself shows that some of "what we do" is unappealing to no domestic faction. Then, even more confusingly, the shows jihadism is a lot about "what we are" - for example his mentions that Osama wants us to convert to Islam.
The anti-Israel angle might be his attempt to increase book sales to the anti-semitic left, but here in the link above it seems heartfelt. And his book describes the worldwide ambitions of Osama and Jihadism, yet without criticism doesn't discuss why accusations that we help Russia and India in Chechnya and Kashmir are wrong.
Even his title is confusing. "Imperial Hubris" seems to evoke the idea of a reaction to American Empire, yet he uses it to criticize Americans who can only think Osama must be only reacting to us because we think, e.g., we're the center of the world.
He's all over the place and he's loopy. Plus many of his so-called revelations are merely taken from Osama's communiques and videos to which he gives no credit.
The only "wagger" in this situation and in all others is HaShem, Yitbarakh Shemo, the Absolute Master of the Universe, Who created the world for the sake of Israel and the Torah. I'd say that sort of makes Israel important . . . wouldn't you?
The only absolutely forbidden subject in American public discourse is G-d's Will in and control of history. No one, including the rightwing anti-Semites, wants to bring that up! I hope Jewish liberals are pround of that.
Shout it from the housetops: HaShem, Hu' Ha'Eloqim!
Speaker: Michael Scheuer, a.k.a. Anonymous, author, " Imperial Hubris"
Presider: Nicholas Lemann, dean, Hubert R. Luce professor of journalism, Columbia University
NICHOLAS LEMANN: So, welcome everyone. My name is Nick Lemann. I'm the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, and I'm here to ask questions to, and sort of field questions from you to Michael Scheuer, who you all know. I will just read his bio for the sake of formality, but here's the book, "Imperial Hubris," which I am sure many of you read. And let me just read this quickly. [The] New York Times and [The] Washington Post bestseller, "Imperial Hubris" was originally published anonymously, as required by the counterintelligence. Its author is Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, who resigned in November 2004 after nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia. As Anonymous, he is also the author of "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America." Scheuer has been featured on many national and international television news programs, interviewed for broadcast media and documentary, and has been the focus of print media worldwide, and now the ultimately appearing at the Council on Foreign Relations. [Laughter]
QUESTIONER: I am Richard Whalen. I'm a writer, and I'm working on a book that's looking at the preliminaries to World War II, when we last had a debate about whether we should go to war before we were thrust into war. I want to congratulate you on reintroducing some of the fundamental issues and questions that have to be addressed before you go to war in a democratic society. And you have particularly focused on the forbidden subject of whether the United States has any limits with the spoiled child of Western civilization, the state of Israel, which insists upon having its own way, to the extent we must read the Israeli press on the Internet and read [the Israeli newspaper] Haaretz so that we see real criticism of a policy that has gone too far. Now, you have taken some criticism for your approach. I'd like to hear what you feel about this subject.
SCHEUER: I always have thought that there's nothing too dangerous to talk about in America, that there shouldn't be anything. And it happens that Israel is the one thing that seems to be too dangerous to talk about. And I wrote in my book that I congratulate them. It's probably the most successful covert action program in the history of man to control--the important political debate in a country of 270 million people is an extraordinary accomplishment. I wish our clandestine service could do as well. The point I would make--the point I try to make basically in the book is we just cannot--we can no longer afford to be seen as the dog that's led by the tail. I've tried to be very clear in saying we have an alliance with the Israelis. We have a moral obligation to try to work through this issue, if we can. But I don't think we can afford to be led around, or at least appear to be led around by them. And I certainly, as an American, find it unbearable to think there's something in this country you can't talk about. That's really my spiel I guess on that, sir.
SCHEUER: It was interesting to see the sheet suggested ways to review "Imperial Hubris" that came out from AIPAC [the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee]. [Laughter]
QUESTIONER: I'm curious--Gary Rosen from Commentary magazine. If you could just elaborate a little bit on the clandestine ways in which Israel and presumably Jews have managed to so control debate over this fundamental foreign policy question.
UNKNOWN: All you have to do is look at this landscape of American politics and see how many people who have raised this issue of the Israeli relationship.
SCHEUER: Well, the clandestine aspect is that, clearly, the ability to influence the Congress--that's a clandestine activity, a covert activity. You know to some extent, the idea that the Holocaust Museum here in our country is another great ability to somehow make people feel guilty about being the people who did the most to try to end the Holocaust. I find--I just find the whole debate in the United States unbearably restricted with the inability to factually discuss what goes on between our two countries.
"Why are there no Jewish Alcoholics?"
"'cause it interferes with there suffering"
My Jewish pal whom I love dearly told me that, it's his favorite.
He says underdeveloped sense of humor is a epic problem in the uncivilized world.
Thanks for the links, I read all the articles.
So basically the CIA has failed us.
Pray tell - just how many sections did you find?
Ain't it the truth! Either that or the man needs to stop smoking the cheap stuff!
That's Baptists, not Jews.
There were no Baptists 1000 years ago.
At least that's the only explanation I could come up for as to why he'd be casting his net so wide and far for source material.
At any rate, while I don't agree with all of his positions, specifically his pessimism as to our chances in Afghanistan, I can't find fault with the majority of the book - and the issue being raised on this thread is whether blind American support for Israel is in America's interest: Scheuer's position is that it's not, and I agree with him.
We're not going to cut Israel loose - Israel's existence is in the American interest.
But looking on passively as Israel expanded settlements into the West Bank and Gaza strip was more harmful to American interests than helpful.
You and your friend are absolutely right. This hyper-sensitivity to our own ethnicity is a byproduct of political correctness which of course comes from the left.
As a Jew,I'll laugh as hard as anybody at a good "Jewish" joke. I think we all need to loosen up a bit. The MSM is always onthe lookout for some perceived or imagined offense directed at some ethnic group, except of course against Christians. Once again, it all comes down to politics.
There's a lot about al-Qaeda's use of the internet in Imperial Hubris. An entire chapter and many other sections in the book. Both Scheuer and Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's former counter-terrorism coordinator (who also wrote a 'tell-all' book) clearly understood the key importance of the internet to facilitate Al-Qaeda's terror plans.
I disagree strongly with Scheuer's tactics. However, my opinion doesn't count and Scheuer was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
I believe Al-Qaeda's cyber-security threat is vastly overrated as well as 'spy' uses such as steganography for covert communications. Terrorists want to be understood.
Terrorism is done out in the open. After the terrorist act occurs they usually claim credit over the net. A beheadding has very little impact unless it's broadcast to the world. People need to realize that Al-Qaeda uses the net for recruitment, propaganda, incitement, fundraising, extortion, intimidation, .... etc. right out in the open -- in plain English (or Arabic, French, Urdu, Malay...).
The sites are easily traced, the credit cards paying for the site are on file at the ISP as well as the IP address of the terrorists uploading content are in the server logs. So why keep the thousands of terror sites on line? If they're keeping the sites online so they can be 'monitored' -- then why doesn't the CIA monitor the sites? (Instead of writing 'tell-all' books) If some hypothetical Arabic translator in some cube in the bowels of Langley is actually translating the terrorist statements off those sites -- they why isn't it being published so the U.S. citizens paying for it can become aware of what's going on.
My pal also considers it a matter of maturity, meaning specifically the luni-left & the rest of the world has a lot of growing up to do.
But, not to worry, the mature are out there everywhere.
It's just the crying snout nosed babies tend to be noticed because the make so much more needless noise.
I doubt you've read the book, Galt - you strike me more as someone who relies upon the ignorance of others to BS your way through a thread.
Where at all does Scheuer talk about steganography?
He's discussing Al Qaeda's use of legitimate websites to advance it's vision, and the proliferation of non-Al Qaeda affiliated websites which are also profitting Al Qaeda by providing a pan-Islamic electronic village in which Al Qaeda's activities, aims, and methods can be discussed. Further, he points out that Al Qaeda's paradoxical embrace of modernity has done away with their need for bases or safe-havens: terrorism is now an at home project, from gathering information, to planning and training for attacks.
And what are you talking about? You're going to call for our censoring non-Al Qaeda affiliated foreign websites, thereby strengthening Al Qaeda's claim to American duplicity in regards to the Muslim world "One standard for Americans, another for Muslims", and for doing what exactly to sites like Al-Neda and Al-Ansar, which have been shut down, only to reappear elsewhere in various forms (even on hijacked State of Arkansas servers)? More of the same?
Thanks for the fresh new approach, John.
Why don't you read those pages you've scanned and OCR'd, m'kay? It would save me the trouble of paraphrasing passages from the book (p79-80).
What does that have to do with us?
Without America, Israel's existence is somewhat tenuous - think back on the Yom Kippur war and our resupply operations, or our Veto of UN resolutions aimed against Israel.
You brought up expanded settlements. I ask again, what does that have to do with us.
Gotcha, you are bad.
Not to mention the fact that no two have the same opinion ;)
You, and I refrain from calling you sir, are a paskudniak.
We are seen as Israel's enablers in the Arab world, and to a large extent that is not an incorrect view.
What about "John" ? ;)
Sorry you have to stoop to such a level. I would hope that is not a true indication of your character.
You have a great propensity for being an irritant.
I can understand how he comes to the conclusions however. He must have known my late grandfather.
Thankfully my father did not pass it on to me.
I would not let him.
Quite true, but the cause is the same cause that brought this author to his erroneous conclusions in both cases of error.
Those with thin skins are rather hypocritical when taking up others bandwidth complaining about "intolerance".
To quote Carol Broslofski: "What what what?!"
Help me out here hoss.
Aw geez! And all this time I was being told it was the Masons!
That has always been a Baptist diversion.
And no, I don't know a thing about the book. I just think over the past 20 years, the equities have shifted decisively to Israel's side, and I was one whose skin would crawl ever time I listened to M. Begin. Diffferent facts lead to different conclusions.
Oh yes, the really "constructive" thing Israel did was to build the wall, which I advocated about 6 years ago. If anything leads to peace, it will be the wall.
A rather unexplainable fear of Jews.
I think we left this with me standing firm on the 1967 border and you allowing for small scale Israeli enlargement.
I'll note that I wouldn't have been so charitable as to describe anything Arafat did as dancing - he was a schmuck and good riddance to him, but neither his existence nor Palestinian's dismal inability to find worthy leadership is reason for Israel to play the Lord of the Manor and enclose the Palestinian commons or divest Palestinians of their homes to make room for Israeli homes - were the shoe on the other foot, Palestinian settlements or encroachment in Israel would be no more acceptable than the current setup, and we need to start enforcing that policy with a little more firmness than we have in the past.
As to where this leads, I'll quote Scheuer himself:
Israel. There is certainly not a more difficult or dangerous issue to debate in the field of postwar U.S. foreign policy. The American political landscape is littered with the battered individuals - most recently the president of the United States - who dared to criticize Israel, or, even more heretically, to question the value to U.S. national interests of the country's overwhelmingly one-way alliance with Israel. Almost every such speaker is immediately branded anti-Semitic and consigned to the netherworld of American politics, as if concerns about U.S. national security are prima facie void if they involve any questioning the U.S.-Israeli status quo.
Sorry - I don't see it.
In the end, what is the in US interests in the long term is to do what is moral and consistent with its conscience - not to pacify the Arabs in an agenda that does not comport with that.
If one really wants to criticize the US and Israel, it should pertain to the period after the 1967 war and into the 1970's, and that is water long under the bridge.
By the way it is hard for any fair minded person to criticize Israel after Barak extended the deal he did, and its rejection. That exposed that the Palestinians and their leadership wore no clothes, covering up their ethnic cleansing agenda, in my mind. That was the real Rubicon for me, as to my present views.
I did not complain about intolerance, though I believe it is what you have a problem with. Take it or leave it.
The costs of supporting Israel are known. What are the costs of not supporting Israel?
Are we to believe that the Muslim world will cease to have grievences? I doubt it. They will have an excuse for Jihad as long as any non-Muslim nation controls territory once controlled by Muslims or any Muslim in Dar Al-Harb is slighted. Of course, the ultimate goal of Muslims is a world-wide Caliphate.
Scheuer knows this. His blaming Israel is therefor a clear attempt to buy off Islam. Of course, the question is why Israel and not Russia, Spain, of Greece?
Instead of dealing with Islam, he preffers to whine about Jewish power.