Sep 08 2007
Scheuer’s Shenanigans
Ex CIA agent Michael Scheuer, supposedly this nation’s best defense against al-Qaeda and Bin Laden leading up to 9-11, is out claiming Bin Laden is ‘winning”:
Scheuer spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit.
Discussing the video with CBS Saturday Early Show anchor Maggie Rodriguez, Scheuer said, “First of all, the setting is very relaxed, very comfortable. He is not in his camouflaged jacket. There’s no rifle. What he is trying to say is that he is under no pressure from the Americans. The Americans are failing in their effort to kill him, and in their effort to destroy al Qaeda.”
Of our progress in battling al Qaeda, Scheuer said, “It points directly to the fact that we failed utterly in Afghanistan to send enough either intelligence officers or military people.
Scheuer is obsessed with the man he failed to get. al-Qaeda is not winning, they are losing and the Muslim street is taking up arms against them and swearing on the Koran to destroy them. Scheuer would call World War II a failure since we never ‘got’ Hitler. But we should be aware of Scheuer’s culpability in regards to Bin Laden. I found something striking in this analysis of the CIA failures leading up to 9-11 and Scheuer’s apparent part in these failures:
Indeed, the OIG report states bluntly that “most of its officers did not have the operational experience, expertise, and training necessary to accomplish their mission in an effective manner.”
Is that scathing assessment in any way connected to the mismatch between Scheuer’s mission and his academic career? In 1986, Scheuer earned a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. This school has earned an international reputation in the field of grain-storage technology, but it is not exactly known for its contribution to the study of foreign policy. In any event, given the wholly irrelevant nature of Scheuer’s doctoral research–his dissertation traced the comings and goings of an obscure Canadian diplomat in the years before World War II–assigning him to run the bin Laden section was of a piece with, indeed, can be taken as a symbol of, the entrenched neglect of Islamic terrorism within the agency.
…
As part of its mandate, the OIG assessed the quality of the CIA’s counterterrorist “analytic products,” that is, its studies of bin Laden and al Qaeda, in the relevant period. It found that “important elements were missing.” It seems that when facts were gathered, “discussion of implications was generally weak.” But facts were not always gathered. Indeed, “a number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all.” In a conclusion unquestionably bearing on Scheuer’s tenure, it found that there had been no “strategic assessment of al Qaeda by CTC or any other component” and that “no comprehensive report focusing on UBL [Osama bin Laden]” had been produced in the period running from 1993 to September 11, 2001. In other words, in 1996, after Scheuer was assigned the job of countering Osama bin Laden, he never bothered with the first and most elementary task of intelligence tradecraft: assembling and evaluating the known facts about his principal target.
Emphasis mine. So Scheuer had time to do a detailed dissertation on some osbcure and unknown spy from before World War II but couldn’t find the time to develop a report on Bin Laden, even after the African Embassy bombings on the USS Cole? Basically no one should be listening to Scheuer on anything. He is out making money by plying his experience and role in the events leading up to 9-11. Talk about blood money.
Sounds like all of the work “Kent” had done went down the drain as evidenced by the actions and writings of Scheur, Plame, McCarthy, Scary Larry, Roy, and others.
Our own government agencies have become way too political. Even if these agencies were to be privatized, they would remain political.
How can we make these government agencies operate without bias and politics?
My brother had been working on the power grid stuff for some of the states up north for several years. And they had been ahead of the market by several years. Check samsix site.
The Kent’s Imperative site sounds very interesting.
Here’s a few interesting things in light of todays media coverage. What I’d like for someone to do is post the links to the evidence or “?” where these basic understandings/assumptions and intel and facts of the Clinton era changed. Where are those events/actions/facts/intelligence/etc???? It seems to me…all we have is the same people saying one thing one day…and another ..the next..without any justification or reason for it..other than to serve as a political football about the invasion of Iraq at a later time…(which suddenly..all this dissapeared..and the same people are/were reporting that none of this previous understanding, facts, intel existed or was thought to exist.
Lock and load:
________________________
Want more? Here’s the friggin VIDEO and a PILE of Clinton era, multiple intel agency sourced material saying the same damn thing (courtesy of flopping aces)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/11/no-evidence-of-a-saddam-osama/
Watch the video. You won’t even believe your eyes/ears. The same intelligence sources, the same kind of reporting, etc..only saying exactly the opposite of what they are saying now. And most certainly, anyone who suggests that this assessments were “never” the case..are simply lieing through their teeth.
abc wasn’t the only one. There’s an entire laundry list of media reports, “intel analysts” “various agencies reporting, etc., on this link. That’s not to mention the documents found in Iraq that were translated…backed this up and added clarity to it.
CNN to this day still carries this AP sourced news item fron 1999:
Bin Laden Reportedly Leaves Afghanistan, Whereabouts Unknown
Of course DubiousD. In 1999, when Bill Clinton was still president, all of these things were true. They were simple facts…like the fact that Saddam openly offered Osama asylum (as he had other terroists who had western targets). Now? They say that this is a fantasy made up by Bush. That Abu Nidal, and others were in Iraq of their own accord without Saddams’ knowledge, etc.
If anyone is curious – I looked up Scheuer’s thesis in the U. Manitoba library catalogue online, and can reveal that the name of the “obscure Canadian diplomat” is Loring Christie. There is something about the guy here.
Wrong. The CIA had good evidence that Saddam had no WMD’s. Tenet specifically briefed Bush on the intel on September 18, 2002. Bush chose to ignore this information, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. He invaded under false pretenses and lied thru his teeth to Congress and the American people.
That’s a fact, Jack!
Fomer Clinton appointees making 2nd and 3rd hand accusations backed up by “anon” intel and former intel sources” leveled at the Bush admin is not a fact by any stretch.
It’s just another attempt at former Clinton era people trying to rewrite history. (or stuff it down their pants and walk out of the archives with it)
It was a “slam dunk”….punk.
[…] found an interesting discussion and several excellent links at the following site, The Strata-Sphere (puttin’ this one on my blogroll […]
[…] found an interesting discussion and several excellent links at the following site, The Strata-Sphere (puttin’ this one on my blogroll […]