Thursday, August 23, 2007

Is the Savage Radio Show the Last Open Forum?

The Michael Savage radio show maybe the last open forum in the United States. I love Rush because he was courageous enough to make the pro-life position mainstream in the 100% abortionist media of the time. But Rush would never have a Michael Sheurer on his program. I don’t agree with everything Savage or Sheurer say, but it’s a joy to hear intelligent dialogue on subjects the “liberal” and “conservative” media rarely cover.

Fred


Michael Scheuer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael F. Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran. He served as the Chief, 1996 to 1999, of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. He was also in charge of drafting the original rendition process (viz. Swiss senator Dick Marty's report on U.S. rendition facilities in Europe) under Clinton.[citation needed] Scheuer resigned from the CIA in 2004. He is currently a News Analyst for CBS News, as well as a Terrorism Analyst for the Jamestown Foundation's online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[1]

Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of both Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.[2]

Although Scheuer was an analyst at the CIA, not a covert field agent, not much is known about his personal history. During a recent C-SPAN interview, he mentioned that he is a graduate of Canisius College. He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire - U.S.-Canada-U.K. Relations from the University of Manitoba.[3] Scheuer currently makes radio and television appearances, and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation's December 2004 conference, "Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11." [3]

In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as "Mike". He is portrayed as occasionally frustrated with his superiors' failure to aggressively target bin Laden.

Contents
[hide]
1 Works
1.1 Imperial Hubris
1.2 Through Our Enemies' Eyes
2 Views
2.1 Operation Iraqi Freedom
2.2 Osama bin Laden
2.2.1 2002
2.2.2 2004 and Later
2.3 Civilian Casualties
2.4 Israel and the Lobby
2.5 Islamic media
2.6 Richard Clarke
2.7 Ron Paul
3 Iraq and al-Qaeda
4 Denunciation of Tenet's Actions & Recollections
5 Bibliography
5.1 Books
5.2 Essays
6 External links
7 Notes and references



[edit] Works

[edit] Imperial Hubris
For main article, see Imperial Hubris
One of the theses of his most recent book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, was that from bin Laden's perspective, the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and will continue to be attacked because of a number of grievances against the U.S. and other western countries. These grievances include: U.S. support of Israel and its indifference to the Palestinians, presence of U.S. and western troops on the Arabian Peninsula, occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. and its allies, the U.S. support of countries that oppress Muslims (such as Russia, India and China), U. S. political pressure on Arab states to keep oil prices low and U.S. support for tyrannical governments.

Scheuer describes his thesis this way: "Imperial Hubris is overwhelmingly focused on how the last several American presidents have been very ill-served by the senior leaders of the Intelligence Community. Indeed, I resigned from an Agency I love in order to publicly damn the feckless 9/11 Commission, which failed to find any personal failure or negiligence among Intelligence Community leaders even though dozens of serving officers provided the commissioners with clear documentary evidence of that failure." [4]


[edit] Through Our Enemies' Eyes
His first book, published under the pseudonym "Anonymous," is an analysis of the public discourse available on al Qaeda's ideology and strategy. In it, Scheuer explores the bin Laden phenomenon and its implications for U.S. security. He began the book in 1999 as an unclassified manual for counterterrorism officers. Due to the secrecy agreement he signed as an employee of the CIA, the book is based solely on unclassified intelligence or material available from open sources such as media reports. His main thesis in the work is that the view of bin Laden as a lunatic is a form of "myopia" that limits Western military thinkers' ability to respond to the bin Laden phenomenon. He writes that "the West's road to hell lies in approaching the bin Laden problem with the presumption that only the lunatic fringe could oppose what the United States is trying to accomplish through its foreign policy toward the Muslim world. Bin Laden's philosophy is slowly harnessing the two most powerful motivating forces in contemporary international affairs: religion and nationalism." (p. 27).

Scheuer describes his thesis: "[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel." [5] The book also documents a number of areas in which Scheuer believed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cooperated. [6]


[edit] Views

[edit] Operation Iraqi Freedom
"I think Iraq is finished. We’ll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn’t send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don’t hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we’re going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?"[7]

[edit] Osama bin Laden

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Michael Scheuer

[edit] 2002
"In 1993 Osama bin Laden began speaking in detail to Muslim and Western journalists about his beliefs, goals, and intentions, and began publishing commentaries on these matters in the media.... While bin Laden's words have not been a torrent, they are plentiful, carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it." (pp. 45-6).
"Bin Laden, of course, learned his military skills in Afghanistan, not on the Iran-Iraq border, and, as a result, his methodological approach to waging jihad is marked by a measured manner stressing patience, preparation, and professionalism." (p. 71).
"The data in the public domain suggest the truth about bin Laden's activities in Afghanistan is much closer to the picture of him as 'the great freedom fighter of the Islamic world" than to the Western experts' description of him as an Islamic do-gooder or an immature, irrational youth." Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 92)
"The Afghan jihad confronted the theoreticians of democratic Islam with a hard reality. The Red Army was not defeated by a democratic revolution, but by an Islamist revolution grounded, guided, and steeled by God's words as found in the Koran and explained by the Prophet. Driven by their faith, the mujhadein [sic] uses bullets, not votes, to win one for Allah, and by so doing revalidated jihad as Islam's normative response to attack." (p. 106)
"Before the [1990 Iraqi] attack [on Kuwait], bin Laden angered Saudi authorities by making a public "prophesy... [that] Saddam was going to invade Saudi Arabia." Sa'd al-Faqih claims bin Laden also sent "secret confidential letters to the King" about the Iraqi threat; according to al-Faqih, "he [bin Laden] was giving talks about it in the mosques. He was giving speeches in the mosques and talking about the dangers of the Ba'ath... having ambitions to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. And then his prophesy was correct. And he was never respected or rewarded for that. Instead he was advised to stay in Jeddah; he was put in sort of house arrest." (p. 113)
"In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 124)

[edit] 2004 and Later
I happened to do the research on the links between al Qaeda and Iraq. (:MATTHEWS: And what did you come up with?) :SCHEUER: Nothing. (Hardball with Chris Matthews November 16, 2004)
It's always been hard for me to understand how we say people who support Osama Bin Laden or someone else like him – who are willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia – how we can describe those people as people who hated freedom. It seems to me that their definition of freedom might be different than ours, but to oppose a dictatorship, one must want freedom in some kind of way. (Al-Jazeera TV on September 11 and 12, 2005)
I think that, you know, we just encountered – America encountered – a brilliant man, and in terms of being a noble cause, it wasn't that many centuries ago that killing in the name of God, or waging war in the name of God, was a major thing in Christianity. (Al-Jazeera TV on September 11 and 12, 2005)
I think the 9/11 Commission report, for example, is wrong. The 9/11 Commission report identifies bin Laden and his followers as takfiris, who kill Muslims if they don‘t agree with them. They‘re not takfiris. They‘re just very devout, severe Salafists and Wahhabis.
[Bin Laden has] already said publicly that you can have all the oil you want. I can‘t drink it. We‘re going to sell it to you at a marketplace.
"I don't consider Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter" (Roundtable discussion on PBS regarding Islam, April 14th 2006, answering a question posed by Ray Suarez).
"The test of an intelligence officer is not so much the ability to accumulate information; it's to judge between different pieces of information, and not to take a piece of information and use it in a piece of analysis simply because it fits your case, but to use it because it either comes from a reliable source like signals intercepts, from a human source that has been vetted over time as a reliable person, or it comes from documentary information -- papers you've stolen from another government or some other organization. The work that came out of Feith's shop that I saw, especially on Al Qaeda and Iraq, was simply... finding pieces of information in the world of intelligence information that fit the argument they wanted to make. Tenet, to his credit, had us go back 10 years in the agency's records and look and see what we knew about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I was available at the time, and I led the effort. We went back 10 years. We examined about 20,000 documents, probably something along the line of 75,000 pages of information, and there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam." The Dark Side, PBS Frontline Interview, (22 June 2006).
"Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton's advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke's reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke's response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so." [8], Washington Times Guest Editorial, July 5, 2006.
"The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda....These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we're going to have absolutely nothing to respond against." (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2006)

[edit] Civilian Casualties
Scheuer participated in the following exchange on the FOX News program The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to...
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since....
O'REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That's the first step.
O'REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.
From The O'Reilly Factor, 19 January 2006[9]


[edit] Israel and the Lobby
Michael Scheuer entered into the controversy surrounding the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the "Israel Lobby". He said to NPR that Mearsheimer and Walt are basically right. Israel, according to Scheuer, has engaged in one of the most successful campaigns to influence public opinion in the United States ever conducted by a foreign government. Scheuer said to NPR that "They [Mearsheimer and Walt] should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby." [4]

In February, 2005, Scheuer gave an interview in which he discussed, among other things, Israeli lobbying in the United States.[5] In the interview, the following exchange took place:

"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.
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."

[edit] Islamic media
"On balance, the Islamic media's taste for what the West terms sensationalizing and conspiracy mongering is less than meets the eye. Based on my research, it is apparent that the Islamic media's correspondents and editors work harder, dig deeper, and think more than most of their Western counterparts. This is not to say that the Islamic media do not suffer from sensationalized conspiracy theories, but they probably are no more prone to those faults than their Western colleagues." (Through Our Enemies' Eyes, p. 280)

[edit] Richard Clarke
"Clarke's book [Against All Enemies] is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick [Clarke], Bill [Clinton] and Sandy [Berger] and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui."[6]
On October 1, 2006, Michael Scheuer appeared on Fox News Sunday and had the following exchange with host Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Mr. Scheuer, as the man in charge of what was called "Alec Station," the CIA unit in charge of hunting down Usama bin Laden, you say the Clinton administration missed at least 10 chances to get him. I don't want to go into all 10, but what was the problem?
FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, the president is correct, in that he got - President Clinton is correct that he got closer than anyone, but, of course, he always refused to pull the trigger. And in addition, we were never authorized, while I was the chief of operations, to kill Usama bin Laden. In fact, Mr. Richard Clarke definitely told us we had no authorization to kill bin Laden.
Why they didn't shoot, of course, is, at least from Mr. Tenet's viewpoint it was because one time they were afraid to have shrapnel hit a mosque when they killed bin Laden. And two other times I think they were afraid they actually would have to do something, so they warned the emirates on one occasion, the princes from the United Arab Emirates, to move so we couldn't attack bin Laden.
WALLACE: They were on a hunting trip with bin Laden.
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. And Richard Clarke called the emirates and warned them that they should get out of that area, which cost us the chance to kill him.
WALLACE: In your opinion, as somebody who was up close and personal, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the USS Cole?
SCHEUER: Mr. Wallace, my opinion is not all that important. I went to a little Jesuit school in Buffalo called Canisius, and the priests taught us never to lie, but if you had to lie, never lie about facts. Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Usama bin Laden. That's the plain truth, the exact truth.
Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.
But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir.[7]

[edit] Ron Paul
In the Republican Presidential Debate on May 15, 2007, presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Rudy Giuliani denounced this as "absurd" and that he’d never heard such a thing before. In an interview on May 18, Michael Scheuer defended Paul, stating: "I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."[8]

On May 24, 2007, Ron Paul and Scheuer held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC about the causes that led up to 9/11, American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security and Iraq.[9] Paul and Scheuer explained why Rudy Giuliani is wrong on security and foreign policy and provided documentation about the unintended consequences of interventionism - known to many in the intelligence as blowback - and assigned Giuliani a reading list of foreign policy books, including Dying to Win, Blowback, Imperial Hubris and the 9/11 Commission Report.[10]


[edit] Iraq and al-Qaeda
Thomas Joscelyn of Weekly Standard wrote a highly critical piece on Scheuer and an interview Scheuer did on Chris Matthews Hardball. [10] Joscelyn wrote:

"When Michael Scheuer, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, first emerged into public view almost a year ago, it was a curiosity how he could appear in the media--time after time--claiming that there was no evidence of a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. It was curious because, in 2002, Scheuer wrote the book Through Our Enemies' Eyes, in which he cited numerous pieces of evidence showing that there was, in fact, a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. That evidence directly contradicted his criticism of the intelligence that led this nation into the Iraq war, which he called a 'Christmas present' for bin Laden."
Scheuer wrote about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in his 2002 book (see above, 2002). Yet when interviewed in 2004 he stated that he had found no evidence of a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection. Tim Russert asked Scheuer to explain the seeming contradiction on Meet the Press (30 November 2004):

MR. SCHEUER: I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was, I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in the terms of a relationship.
MR. RUSSERT: But your [2002] book did point out some contacts?
MR. SCHEUER: Certainly it was available in the open-source material, yes, sir.[11]
Scheuer explains more fully in the revised edition of his 2002 book the exhaustive study of the evidence of Iraq-al-Qaeda cooperation that eventually led him to the conclusion that there was no relationship between the two forces:

For a number of reasons, I was available to perform the review of Agency files on Iraq and al Qaeda, and the chief of the bin Laden unit handed me the assignment. I was delighted with the task, eager to begin, and sure that my research would support the analysis I had presented in Through Our Enemies' Eyes. For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials. I was both pleased and embarrassed by the results of the research. I was pleased because CIA's position was reaffirmed and the analysis of Mr. Feith's unit was discredited. There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book.[11]

[edit] Denunciation of Tenet's Actions & Recollections
In a Washington Post editorial on Sunday, April 29, 2007 (Page B01) entitled "NOW HE TELLS US - Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It.", Scheuer strongly criticized Tenet's behavior before & after both 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Scheuer also points out untruths in the way Tenet recounted his role in those situations.

"It's impossible to dislike Tenet, who is smart, polite, hard-working, convivial and detail-oriented. But he's also a man who never went from cheerleader to leader."

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] Books
Scheuer, Michael (2003). Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & the Future of America. Brassey's Inc. ISBN 1-57488-553-7.
Scheuer, Michael (2004). Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Brassey's Inc. ISBN 1-57488-849-8.

[edit] Essays
"Battling the terrorists" Washington Times (December 26, 2004).
"Unraveling the Saga of Zarqawi's Injury" Terrorism Focus 2:11 (10 June 2005).
"Embracing a Lethal Tar Baby." Antiwar.com (February 27, 2006).
"How Bush Helps Jihadists." Washington Times (13 March 2006).
"Al-Qaeda Doctrine: Training the Individual Warrior." Terrorism Focus 3:12 (28 March 2006).
"Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You Bet it Does." Antiwar.com (8 April 2006).
"Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It." Editorial Washington Post (29 April 2007).

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Michael Scheuer
Bin Laden Expert Steps Forward - CBS News, November 14, 2004
Interview in 2004-08-02 The American Conservative [12]
Goss pushes change at CIA - Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, November 19, 2004
C-Span discussion (requires RealPlayer) (current file -needs updating)
12-02-04 C-Span panel appearance on the War on Terror (no link yet)
Why I resigned from the CIA, 2004-12-05 LA Times [13]
“How Not to Catch a Terrorist”, The Atlantic Monthly, 2004-12
BuzzFlash interview on January 5, 2005 [14]
PBS Frontline interview on January 25, 2005 [15]
Speech at Council on Foreign Relations on February 3, 2005 [16]
BBC Radio 4, February 8, 2005 [17]
Charles Goyette show, February 9, 2005: Part I / Part II
CBC Radio 1, The Current, April 12, 2005 [18]
Charles Goyette show, February 25, 2005: [19]
Michael Scheuer's interview with Scott Horton [20]
On NPR's Morning Edition, July 7, 2005 [21]
Michael Scheuer's articles at AntiWar.com [22]
A photograph! [23]
34 (or more) quotations from Scheuer [24]
Leaking at All Costs Weekly Standard, November 30, 2005
Scheuer's Response to "Leaking At All Costs" Powelineblog.com December 7, 2005
"Hayden Seek" May 09, 2006 The Brian Lehrer Show
Michael Scheuer's articles at The Jamestown Foundation [25]

[edit] Notes and references
^ Global Terrorism Analysis.
^ The authorship of these books is now widely known, and advertised as such. See [1] Council on Foreign Relations, Transcript of Interview Winning or Losing? An Inside Look at the War on Terror by Nicholas Lemann Dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism , February 3, 2005. Also see: The Phoenix
^ Georgetown Bio
^ Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate, Deborah Amos, National Public Radio, April 21, 2006
^ Council on Foreign Relations,[2], February 3, 2005
^ Michael F. Scheuer, "Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy," Washington Times (5 July 2006).
^ "Transcript: Counterterror Experts Debate Clinton Claims on 'FNS'", Fox News, October 01, 2006.
^ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul/
^ http://upcoming.yahoo.com/venue/62008/
^ Reuters: N24342743.htm U.S. candidate Paul assigns reading to Giuliani. May 24, 2007.
^ Michael Scheuer, Through Our Enemies' Eyes (revised edition). Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2006) p. 136.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer"
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | People of the Central Intelligence Agency | Counter-terrorism | Anti-terrorism policy of the United States | Islamist terrorism | Al-Qaeda | American broadcast news analysts | American political pundits | American foreign policy writers | Year of birth missing | Living people | Canisius College alumni

Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
History
Personal tools
Sign in / create account
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Search

Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this article


This page was last modified 19:07, 17 August 2007.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!
Michael Scheuer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michael F. Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran. He served as the Chief, 1996 to 1999, of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. He was also in charge of drafting the original rendition process (viz. Swiss senator Dick Marty's report on U.S. rendition facilities in Europe) under Clinton.[citation needed] Scheuer resigned from the CIA in 2004. He is currently a News Analyst for CBS News, as well as a Terrorism Analyst for the Jamestown Foundation's online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[1]

Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of both Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.[2]

Although Scheuer was an analyst at the CIA, not a covert field agent, not much is known about his personal history. During a recent C-SPAN interview, he mentioned that he is a graduate of Canisius College. He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire - U.S.-Canada-U.K. Relations from the University of Manitoba.[3] Scheuer currently makes radio and television appearances, and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation's December 2004 conference, "Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11." [3]

In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as "Mike". He is portrayed as occasionally frustrated with his superiors' failure to aggressively target bin Laden.

Contents
[hide]
1 Works
1.1 Imperial Hubris
1.2 Through Our Enemies' Eyes
2 Views
2.1 Operation Iraqi Freedom
2.2 Osama bin Laden
2.2.1 2002
2.2.2 2004 and Later
2.3 Civilian Casualties
2.4 Israel and the Lobby
2.5 Islamic media
2.6 Richard Clarke
2.7 Ron Paul
3 Iraq and al-Qaeda
4 Denunciation of Tenet's Actions & Recollections
5 Bibliography
5.1 Books
5.2 Essays
6 External links
7 Notes and references



[edit] Works

[edit] Imperial Hubris
For main article, see Imperial Hubris
One of the theses of his most recent book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, was that from bin Laden's perspective, the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and will continue to be attacked because of a number of grievances against the U.S. and other western countries. These grievances include: U.S. support of Israel and its indifference to the Palestinians, presence of U.S. and western troops on the Arabian Peninsula, occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. and its allies, the U.S. support of countries that oppress Muslims (such as Russia, India and China), U. S. political pressure on Arab states to keep oil prices low and U.S. support for tyrannical governments.

Scheuer describes his thesis this way: "Imperial Hubris is overwhelmingly focused on how the last several American presidents have been very ill-served by the senior leaders of the Intelligence Community. Indeed, I resigned from an Agency I love in order to publicly damn the feckless 9/11 Commission, which failed to find any personal failure or negiligence among Intelligence Community leaders even though dozens of serving officers provided the commissioners with clear documentary evidence of that failure." [4]


[edit] Through Our Enemies' Eyes
His first book, published under the pseudonym "Anonymous," is an analysis of the public discourse available on al Qaeda's ideology and strategy. In it, Scheuer explores the bin Laden phenomenon and its implications for U.S. security. He began the book in 1999 as an unclassified manual for counterterrorism officers. Due to the secrecy agreement he signed as an employee of the CIA, the book is based solely on unclassified intelligence or material available from open sources such as media reports. His main thesis in the work is that the view of bin Laden as a lunatic is a form of "myopia" that limits Western military thinkers' ability to respond to the bin Laden phenomenon. He writes that "the West's road to hell lies in approaching the bin Laden problem with the presumption that only the lunatic fringe could oppose what the United States is trying to accomplish through its foreign policy toward the Muslim world. Bin Laden's philosophy is slowly harnessing the two most powerful motivating forces in contemporary international affairs: religion and nationalism." (p. 27).

Scheuer describes his thesis: "[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel." [5] The book also documents a number of areas in which Scheuer believed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cooperated. [6]


[edit] Views

[edit] Operation Iraqi Freedom
"I think Iraq is finished. We’ll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn’t send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don’t hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we’re going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?"[7]

[edit] Osama bin Laden

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Michael Scheuer

[edit] 2002
"In 1993 Osama bin Laden began speaking in detail to Muslim and Western journalists about his beliefs, goals, and intentions, and began publishing commentaries on these matters in the media.... While bin Laden's words have not been a torrent, they are plentiful, carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it." (pp. 45-6).
"Bin Laden, of course, learned his military skills in Afghanistan, not on the Iran-Iraq border, and, as a result, his methodological approach to waging jihad is marked by a measured manner stressing patience, preparation, and professionalism." (p. 71).
"The data in the public domain suggest the truth about bin Laden's activities in Afghanistan is much closer to the picture of him as 'the great freedom fighter of the Islamic world" than to the Western experts' description of him as an Islamic do-gooder or an immature, irrational youth." Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 92)
"The Afghan jihad confronted the theoreticians of democratic Islam with a hard reality. The Red Army was not defeated by a democratic revolution, but by an Islamist revolution grounded, guided, and steeled by God's words as found in the Koran and explained by the Prophet. Driven by their faith, the mujhadein [sic] uses bullets, not votes, to win one for Allah, and by so doing revalidated jihad as Islam's normative response to attack." (p. 106)
"Before the [1990 Iraqi] attack [on Kuwait], bin Laden angered Saudi authorities by making a public "prophesy... [that] Saddam was going to invade Saudi Arabia." Sa'd al-Faqih claims bin Laden also sent "secret confidential letters to the King" about the Iraqi threat; according to al-Faqih, "he [bin Laden] was giving talks about it in the mosques. He was giving speeches in the mosques and talking about the dangers of the Ba'ath... having ambitions to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. And then his prophesy was correct. And he was never respected or rewarded for that. Instead he was advised to stay in Jeddah; he was put in sort of house arrest." (p. 113)
"In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 124)

[edit] 2004 and Later
I happened to do the research on the links between al Qaeda and Iraq. (:MATTHEWS: And what did you come up with?) :SCHEUER: Nothing. (Hardball with Chris Matthews November 16, 2004)
It's always been hard for me to understand how we say people who support Osama Bin Laden or someone else like him – who are willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia – how we can describe those people as people who hated freedom. It seems to me that their definition of freedom might be different than ours, but to oppose a dictatorship, one must want freedom in some kind of way. (Al-Jazeera TV on September 11 and 12, 2005)
I think that, you know, we just encountered – America encountered – a brilliant man, and in terms of being a noble cause, it wasn't that many centuries ago that killing in the name of God, or waging war in the name of God, was a major thing in Christianity. (Al-Jazeera TV on September 11 and 12, 2005)
I think the 9/11 Commission report, for example, is wrong. The 9/11 Commission report identifies bin Laden and his followers as takfiris, who kill Muslims if they don‘t agree with them. They‘re not takfiris. They‘re just very devout, severe Salafists and Wahhabis.
[Bin Laden has] already said publicly that you can have all the oil you want. I can‘t drink it. We‘re going to sell it to you at a marketplace.
"I don't consider Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter" (Roundtable discussion on PBS regarding Islam, April 14th 2006, answering a question posed by Ray Suarez).
"The test of an intelligence officer is not so much the ability to accumulate information; it's to judge between different pieces of information, and not to take a piece of information and use it in a piece of analysis simply because it fits your case, but to use it because it either comes from a reliable source like signals intercepts, from a human source that has been vetted over time as a reliable person, or it comes from documentary information -- papers you've stolen from another government or some other organization. The work that came out of Feith's shop that I saw, especially on Al Qaeda and Iraq, was simply... finding pieces of information in the world of intelligence information that fit the argument they wanted to make. Tenet, to his credit, had us go back 10 years in the agency's records and look and see what we knew about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I was available at the time, and I led the effort. We went back 10 years. We examined about 20,000 documents, probably something along the line of 75,000 pages of information, and there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam." The Dark Side, PBS Frontline Interview, (22 June 2006).
"Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton's advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke's reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke's response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so." [8], Washington Times Guest Editorial, July 5, 2006.
"The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda....These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we're going to have absolutely nothing to respond against." (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2006)

[edit] Civilian Casualties
Scheuer participated in the following exchange on the FOX News program The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to...
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since....
O'REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That's the first step.
O'REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.
From The O'Reilly Factor, 19 January 2006[9]


[edit] Israel and the Lobby
Michael Scheuer entered into the controversy surrounding the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the "Israel Lobby". He said to NPR that Mearsheimer and Walt are basically right. Israel, according to Scheuer, has engaged in one of the most successful campaigns to influence public opinion in the United States ever conducted by a foreign government. Scheuer said to NPR that "They [Mearsheimer and Walt] should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby." [4]

In February, 2005, Scheuer gave an interview in which he discussed, among other things, Israeli lobbying in the United States.[5] In the interview, the following exchange took place:

"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.
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."

[edit] Islamic media
"On balance, the Islamic media's taste for what the West terms sensationalizing and conspiracy mongering is less than meets the eye. Based on my research, it is apparent that the Islamic media's correspondents and editors work harder, dig deeper, and think more than most of their Western counterparts. This is not to say that the Islamic media do not suffer from sensationalized conspiracy theories, but they probably are no more prone to those faults than their Western colleagues." (Through Our Enemies' Eyes, p. 280)

[edit] Richard Clarke
"Clarke's book [Against All Enemies] is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick [Clarke], Bill [Clinton] and Sandy [Berger] and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui."[6]
On October 1, 2006, Michael Scheuer appeared on Fox News Sunday and had the following exchange with host Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Mr. Scheuer, as the man in charge of what was called "Alec Station," the CIA unit in charge of hunting down Usama bin Laden, you say the Clinton administration missed at least 10 chances to get him. I don't want to go into all 10, but what was the problem?
FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, the president is correct, in that he got - President Clinton is correct that he got closer than anyone, but, of course, he always refused to pull the trigger. And in addition, we were never authorized, while I was the chief of operations, to kill Usama bin Laden. In fact, Mr. Richard Clarke definitely told us we had no authorization to kill bin Laden.
Why they didn't shoot, of course, is, at least from Mr. Tenet's viewpoint it was because one time they were afraid to have shrapnel hit a mosque when they killed bin Laden. And two other times I think they were afraid they actually would have to do something, so they warned the emirates on one occasion, the princes from the United Arab Emirates, to move so we couldn't attack bin Laden.
WALLACE: They were on a hunting trip with bin Laden.
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. And Richard Clarke called the emirates and warned them that they should get out of that area, which cost us the chance to kill him.
WALLACE: In your opinion, as somebody who was up close and personal, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the USS Cole?
SCHEUER: Mr. Wallace, my opinion is not all that important. I went to a little Jesuit school in Buffalo called Canisius, and the priests taught us never to lie, but if you had to lie, never lie about facts. Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Usama bin Laden. That's the plain truth, the exact truth.
Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.
But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir.[7]

[edit] Ron Paul
In the Republican Presidential Debate on May 15, 2007, presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Rudy Giuliani denounced this as "absurd" and that he’d never heard such a thing before. In an interview on May 18, Michael Scheuer defended Paul, stating: "I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."[8]

On May 24, 2007, Ron Paul and Scheuer held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC about the causes that led up to 9/11, American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security and Iraq.[9] Paul and Scheuer explained why Rudy Giuliani is wrong on security and foreign policy and provided documentation about the unintended consequences of interventionism - known to many in the intelligence as blowback - and assigned Giuliani a reading list of foreign policy books, including Dying to Win, Blowback, Imperial Hubris and the 9/11 Commission Report.[10]


[edit] Iraq and al-Qaeda
Thomas Joscelyn of Weekly Standard wrote a highly critical piece on Scheuer and an interview Scheuer did on Chris Matthews Hardball. [10] Joscelyn wrote:

"When Michael Scheuer, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, first emerged into public view almost a year ago, it was a curiosity how he could appear in the media--time after time--claiming that there was no evidence of a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. It was curious because, in 2002, Scheuer wrote the book Through Our Enemies' Eyes, in which he cited numerous pieces of evidence showing that there was, in fact, a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. That evidence directly contradicted his criticism of the intelligence that led this nation into the Iraq war, which he called a 'Christmas present' for bin Laden."
Scheuer wrote about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in his 2002 book (see above, 2002). Yet when interviewed in 2004 he stated that he had found no evidence of a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection. Tim Russert asked Scheuer to explain the seeming contradiction on Meet the Press (30 November 2004):

MR. SCHEUER: I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was, I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in the terms of a relationship.
MR. RUSSERT: But your [2002] book did point out some contacts?
MR. SCHEUER: Certainly it was available in the open-source material, yes, sir.[11]
Scheuer explains more fully in the revised edition of his 2002 book the exhaustive study of the evidence of Iraq-al-Qaeda cooperation that eventually led him to the conclusion that there was no relationship between the two forces:

For a number of reasons, I was available to perform the review of Agency files on Iraq and al Qaeda, and the chief of the bin Laden unit handed me the assignment. I was delighted with the task, eager to begin, and sure that my research would support the analysis I had presented in Through Our Enemies' Eyes. For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials. I was both pleased and embarrassed by the results of the research. I was pleased because CIA's position was reaffirmed and the analysis of Mr. Feith's unit was discredited. There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book.[11]

[edit] Denunciation of Tenet's Actions & Recollections
In a Washington Post editorial on Sunday, April 29, 2007 (Page B01) entitled "NOW HE TELLS US - Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It.", Scheuer strongly criticized Tenet's behavior before & after both 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Scheuer also points out untruths in the way Tenet recounted his role in those situations.

"It's impossible to dislike Tenet, who is smart, polite, hard-working, convivial and detail-oriented. But he's also a man who never went from cheerleader to leader."

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] Books
Scheuer, Michael (2003). Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & the Future of America. Brassey's Inc. ISBN 1-57488-553-7.
Scheuer, Michael (2004). Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Brassey's Inc. ISBN 1-57488-849-8.

[edit] Essays
"Battling the terrorists" Washington Times (December 26, 2004).
"Unraveling the Saga of Zarqawi's Injury" Terrorism Focus 2:11 (10 June 2005).
"Embracing a Lethal Tar Baby." Antiwar.com (February 27, 2006).
"How Bush Helps Jihadists." Washington Times (13 March 2006).
"Al-Qaeda Doctrine: Training the Individual Warrior." Terrorism Focus 3:12 (28 March 2006).
"Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You Bet it Does." Antiwar.com (8 April 2006).
"Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It." Editorial Washington Post (29 April 2007).

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Michael Scheuer
Bin Laden Expert Steps Forward - CBS News, November 14, 2004
Interview in 2004-08-02 The American Conservative [12]
Goss pushes change at CIA - Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, November 19, 2004
C-Span discussion (requires RealPlayer) (current file -needs updating)
12-02-04 C-Span panel appearance on the War on Terror (no link yet)
Why I resigned from the CIA, 2004-12-05 LA Times [13]
“How Not to Catch a Terrorist”, The Atlantic Monthly, 2004-12
BuzzFlash interview on January 5, 2005 [14]
PBS Frontline interview on January 25, 2005 [15]
Speech at Council on Foreign Relations on February 3, 2005 [16]
BBC Radio 4, February 8, 2005 [17]
Charles Goyette show, February 9, 2005: Part I / Part II
CBC Radio 1, The Current, April 12, 2005 [18]
Charles Goyette show, February 25, 2005: [19]
Michael Scheuer's interview with Scott Horton [20]
On NPR's Morning Edition, July 7, 2005 [21]
Michael Scheuer's articles at AntiWar.com [22]
A photograph! [23]
34 (or more) quotations from Scheuer [24]
Leaking at All Costs Weekly Standard, November 30, 2005
Scheuer's Response to "Leaking At All Costs" Powelineblog.com December 7, 2005
"Hayden Seek" May 09, 2006 The Brian Lehrer Show
Michael Scheuer's articles at The Jamestown Foundation [25]

[edit] Notes and references
^ Global Terrorism Analysis.
^ The authorship of these books is now widely known, and advertised as such. See [1] Council on Foreign Relations, Transcript of Interview Winning or Losing? An Inside Look at the War on Terror by Nicholas Lemann Dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism , February 3, 2005. Also see: The Phoenix
^ Georgetown Bio
^ Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate, Deborah Amos, National Public Radio, April 21, 2006
^ Council on Foreign Relations,[2], February 3, 2005
^ Michael F. Scheuer, "Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy," Washington Times (5 July 2006).
^ "Transcript: Counterterror Experts Debate Clinton Claims on 'FNS'", Fox News, October 01, 2006.
^ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul/
^ http://upcoming.yahoo.com/venue/62008/
^ Reuters: N24342743.htm U.S. candidate Paul assigns reading to Giuliani. May 24, 2007.
^ Michael Scheuer, Through Our Enemies' Eyes (revised edition). Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2006) p. 136.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer"
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | People of the Central Intelligence Agency | Counter-terrorism | Anti-terrorism policy of the United States | Islamist terrorism | Al-Qaeda | American broadcast news analysts | American political pundits | American foreign policy writers | Year of birth missing | Living people | Canisius College alumni

Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
History
Personal tools
Sign in / create account
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Search

Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this article


This page was last modified 19:07, 17 August 2007.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers


[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer]

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Psychology and Sigmund Freud’s Cocaine Addiction

Paul C. Vitz, Professor of Psychology at New York University, in his book "Sigmund Freud’s Christian Unconscious" clearly states that Freud was a cocaine addict. I just finished E. M. Thornton's book "The Freudian Fallacy." It shows in my opinion very effectively that Freudian Psychology of which our secular sexual society is formed is a fraud and drug fantasty.

Dr. Vitz says "At times, cocaine may have distorted his reactions; for example, it may have made his depressions darker and harder to fight. But cocaine did not create the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought. (The question of whether Freud’s theories are correct is also one that Thornton addresses extensively. This issue, however important in its own right, is not of concern here).

I disagree with Vitz's view that cocaine didn't effect "the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought." After finishing "The Freudian Fallacy," I thought it destroyed Freud the scientist and the his theory. Read the book. many reviews are written by those who make a living on a drug fantasty.

Fred

Cocaine and the Devil

We need now to develop a deeper understanding of Faust by showing the story’s connection to Freud’s use of cocaine. Freud’s important, rather lengthy involvement with cocaine is now being widely recognized.26 (Jones discusses cocaine briefly as an episode, but he plays down the subject to the point of distorting the record.27) Quite recently, both Swales,28 to whom this section owes much, and Thornton29 have made clear the pervasive effects of cocaine on Freud’s thoughts, moods, and fantasies.

Freud began experimenting with the drug in 1884, when he was 28, at a time when cocaine was almost unknown in scientific circles.30 During the period 1884-1887, Freud took cocaine frequently, sometimes in heavy doses.31 After taking the drug himself and getting some preliminary reports from others, Freud published glowing descriptions of cocaine. Not only did Freud think at the time that the drug had anti-morphine effects; he was enthusiastic as well about its contributions to mental well-being. It was an antidote to his frequent depressions, and also provided increased physical strength and sexual potency. Like Faust, Freud was enamored of the idea of a drug-induced rejuvenation. Freud’s initial involvement with cocaine thoroughly captured both his emotional and intellectual interests. He enthusiastically recommended it to others, including his fiancĂ©e.32 He administered the drug (very likely via hypodermic needle) to his friend and colleague Ernst Fleischl, who was suffering from a drawn-out, terminal nerve condition that required the use of morphine to ease his pain.33 Freud got Fleischl to take cocaine, which he thought would cure his friend’s morphine addiction and have no undesirable effects of its own. Instead, after a brief period of benefit from the drug, Fleischl became addicted to cocaine as well as to morphine, and suffered particularly from cocaine-induced hallucinations


(e.g., crawling “cocaine bugs”) and delirium tremens.34 Freud later bitterly acknowledged that he might have hastened his friend’s death, saying it was “the result of trying to cast out the devil with Beelzebub.”35

In the eyes of many, Freud was soon seen as a public menace: One prominent doctor wrote of Freud as having unleashed “the third great scourge of mankind,” the first two having been alcohol and opium.36

In Freud’s defense, it should be said that at the time little was known about the drug, although he clearly displayed very poor judgment. His overenthusiasm for cocaine stemmed from three pressing personal desires, which the drug promised to satisfy. First was his intense desire to get married soon, for he was “pathologically” anxious about his separation from and lengthy open-ended engagement with Martha, who was in northern Germany. He was afraid he might lose her. He had already been separated from her for a year when he began using cocaine, although it seemed much longer to him, for he recalled it once as a two-year separation and once as lasting several years.37 A second driving concern was career ambition.38 A medical success, such as the discovery of positive effects from a new drug, would at once advance his career and improve his financial situation, enabling him to marry. Thus, both of these desires would be satisfied by a “cocaine” success. The third need was Freud’s desire for an escape from his deeply neurotic depressions, induced to a large degree by his separation anxiety. (We may recall some of his letters to Martha, as discussed in Chapter Three.39)

Jones summarizes Freud’s motives for working on cocaine as involving the enhancement of virility, as well as promising to speed up marriage with Martha; Jones also notes that in getting involved with cocaine, Freud had “forsaken the straight and narrow path of science to seize a short cut to success.”40 His attitude toward the new “soma” was expressed in a dramatic passage from a letter to Martha on June 2, 1884, shortly after he first took it:

Woe to you, my Princess, when I come [for a planned visit]. I will kiss you quite red and feed you until you are plump. And if you are forward you shall see who is the stronger, a gentle girl who doesn’t eat enough or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body. In my last severe depression I took coca again and a small dose lifted me to heights in a wonderful fashion. I am just now busy collecting the literature for a song of praise to this magical substance.41

Freud received some scientific acclaim for bringing cocaine to the attention of the medical world, but within a year of his official reports the negative effects of the drug were being reported. These criticisms Freud himself described as “grave reproaches,”42 and they put him under something of a cloud. Jones admits, “It was a poor background from which to shock Viennese medical circles a few years later with his theories on the sexual etiology of the neuroses.”43

Ironically, it was a young doctor friend of Freud—Carl Koller, an ophthalmologist—who became famous overnight by discovering that cocaine was an effective local anesthetic for the eye, thus enabling anesthetic to be given for eye operations for the first time.44 Freud had suspected this, but had not immediately investigated the possibility; Koller did. As a result, Koller, to whom Freud had introduced the drug, reaped the career advancement and financial rewards of which Freud had dreamed.

Now the Devil comes into all this through two facts, whose importance Peter Swales has recognized and which he brought to my attention.45 The Swalesian theory is thus the third published interpretation of a Freudian pact with the Devil.46 Freud first took cocaine on the night of April 30, 1884—that is, Walpurgisnacht.47 In doing this, Freud, who took the drug in liquid form (as a “brew”), was clearly imitating Faust in his pact with Mephistopheles.48 The whole affair could easily have been primed by the fact that Goethe’s Faust was the talk of Vienna in early 1884, following a series of well-publicized performances at the Old Burgtheater.49

The yellow smoke gets thicker when another aspect of the situation is considered: Freud obtained his cocaine, which was expensive, from the drug company of Merck in Darmstadt, Germany. He got a local chemist to contact Emanuel Merck, the head of the company. Later, Freud and Fleischl corresponded with Merck personally.50 (An example of the Merck bottle of cocaine, and of a prescription, written by Freud to Merck for cocaine, is available. This particular prescription is from a later date, June 1893; it proves Freud’s continued connection with the drug.51) What Swales has pointed out is that the Merck who founded the company was Goethe’s model for Mephistopheles when he wrote Faust. Goethe, in his well-known autobiographical work Dichtung und Wahrheit, not only referred to Merck as a “great negator” and as a man of the world “who had the greatest influence on me”52; more significantly, he compared Merck to Mephistopheles at least three times.53 Freud knew Goethe’s work well, and was presumably familiar with this text. In writing to the great-grandson of the first Merck, Merck’s “revenant,” he was, psychologically speaking, contacting the Devil.

It is remotely possible that in 1884 Freud had not yet read Goethe’s famous autobiography, in the second half of which Merck figures so prominently. Freud certainly did read Dichtung und Wahrheit at some time, though, since in 1917 he published an analysis of a childhood memory of Goethe cited in this work.54 The memory in question, which Freud interpreted as an expression of sibling rivalry, was one he said he had long known but had only written about for publication when he had come to a psychoanalytic understanding of its meaning.55

Freud also pointed out in his review of the history of cocaine, published in July 1884, that the Spaniards, who first wrote of the use of the coca plant by South American Indians, suspected that it was the work of the Devi1.56

In conclusion, it is clear that cocaine for Freud was thoroughly linked to the Devil, and, indeed, was connected from the beginning to some kind of pact. Thus, while Freud was still a young physician—years before the beginning of psychoanalysis, and some 10-12 years before the psychological “pact” that Bakan proposes—he was already very strongly involved with the Devil. The exact nature of the pact is still not clear, but it appears to have been modeled on Faust’s pact, and it was certainly precipitated by Freud’s admittedly “severe” depressions, his longing for Martha, and his “pathological ambition.”57

Thornton’s Cocaine Thesis

E. M. Thornton has very recently published an extensive discussion of the effect of Freud’s cocaine use on both his personal psychology and his theories.58 Although, for reasons given below, I think Thornton has overgeneralized the significance of cocaine for understanding Freud, she does make a number of important contributions to Freud scholarship.

To begin with, she identifies two time periods when Freud took cocaine59: the first from 1884 to 1887, first noted by Jones, and a second period, beginning in late 1892 and continuing into the middle or late 1890s.60 Thornton is not especially clear on when Freud last took cocaine, but she clearly implies that he took it well after 1900, perhaps until 1912.61 However, because of the complete and uncensored letters of Freud to Fliess, very recently published, it appears that Freud permanently ceased taking cocaine in October 1896, when he wrote to Fliess that he had put his cocaine brush aside.62 An important consequence, in the following months, would be that Freud was often struggling with cocaine withdrawal experiences, especially depression. Thornton also points out that Freud used pure, unadulterated cocaine; he used it frequently and often in strong doses.63 Thornton’s major claim is that Freud suffered from cocaine poisoning and from powerful drug-induced psychological states.64 In particular, she claims that Freud’s psychological theory was simply the natural consequence of extensive cocaine usage.65 It is well known that cocaine causes hallucinations, vivid dreams, and extensive fantasies in frequent users. Cocaine use can also cause sexual preoccupation to become obsessive. Other reliable psychological effects from taking too much cocaine are periods of elation, optimism, and an almost messianic belief in having discovered the great secrets of life; these intervals are followed by periods of deep depression often accompanied

by paranoia and murderous impulses toward friends.66 All of these symptoms, Thornton argues, are clearly shown in Freud’s letters to Fliess and often in Fliess’s ideas as well, since Fliess was also a heavy user of cocaine. (Both suffered from severe headaches and from nasal and sinus infections during this period as well. Such symptoms are typical when cocaine is taken through the nose, as was the case during these years for both Freud and Fliess.67)

My primary critique of Thornton is that much of Freud’s psychology was clearly apparent before he took cocaine. Therefore, although the drug would have accentuated and sometimes distorted Freud’s already existing psychology and intellectual interests, it would not have caused them in the first place. For example, Freud was mentioning his extreme depressive reactions to Martha’s absence before he took cocaine. For example, on August 18, 1882, he wrote, “Without you I would let my arms droop for sheer lack of desire to live”68; on February 14, 1884, he exclaimed, “Do you realize it is two whole days since I heard from you and I am beginning to worry!”69

Likewise, Freud’s previously discussed expressions of religious preoccupation—his lengthy letter about the Christian paintings in Dresden, his many youthful references to God, his early quotes from Faust, and his references to the Devil—all preceded his cocaine use. Most of his involvement with Brentano and the letters to Fluss and Silberstein that have been cited also antedate his use of cocaine, as does his attraction to Flaubert’s The Temptation of St. Anthony, with what Freud called its wild Walpurgisnacht character. Finally, we can observe Freud’s very early expression of extreme self-confidence in a letter written when he was 17 to his friend Emil Fluss. Freud was writing about his high grades in his school (Gymnasium) examinations. One of his professors told him that he had an outstanding writing style, and Freud remarked:

I was suitably impressed by this amazing fact and do not hesitate to disseminate the happy event, the first of its kind, as widely as possible—to you, for instance, who until now have probably remained unaware that you have been exchanging letters with a German stylist.…preserve them [the letters]—have them bound—take good care of them—one never knows.70

Another way to place Thornton’s cocaine claims in perspective is to compare the very different effects of the drug on Freud and on Fliess. Both became somewhat megalomaniacal; both showed occasional signs of sloppy (probably drug-affected) thinking; both became preoccupied with sex. But the differences were even greater and can be plausibly explained by the different personal psychologies and professional backgrounds of the two men. Fliess focused on the sexual significance of the nose71; Freud never seriously theorized about the nose. Fliess empha-

sized his proposed female and male sexual periods of 28 and 23 days, respectively, while Freud turned to sexual experiences in childhood between the ages of two and four. Freud analyzed dreams and fantasies, but Fliess seems to have had no real interest in these phenomena. In short, these were very different ways to approach sexuality, and therefore I conclude that the major effect of cocaine was to accentuate or heighten Freud’s pre-existing thought patterns and psychological preoccupations. At times, cocaine may have distorted his reactions; for example, it may have made his depressions darker and harder to fight. But cocaine did not create the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought. (The question of whether Freud’s theories are correct is also one that Thornton addresses extensively. This issue, however important in its own right, is not of concern here; instead, the present discussion is focused on understanding the origin and nature of Freud’s thought with respect to religion, especially Christianity. The question of the validity of Freud’s theories is treated only with respect to his interpretation of religion, and then only in the last chapter of this book.)

[Pages 113 to 115, http://www.paulvitz.com/FreudsXtnUncon/113.html to http://www.paulvitz.com/FreudsXtnUncon/115.html]

Friday, August 10, 2007

Pray for Michael Savage Who is Facing the New Nazis

We need to pray for Michael Savage. The media and city of San Francisco are trying to take him off the air. The cover for this attack is a Hispanic patsy group being used by the gay elites.

He is a courageous man who is willing to face down the Pink Nazis. The biggest powers in the USA are out to get Savage not because he is anti-gay.

They want to destroy him because he is the only voice in the nation who shows the homosexual take-over of almost all American institutions. The gay mafia, Hitler-like, uses that institutional power of the media, courts, or just about every US institution to destroy any person or group that promotes Christian and Jewish moral standards.

Savage is under attack because he said there is a “homosexualization of the media, the homosexual mafia . . . controls virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear.”

The so-called media of the US are only stooges of the New York Times and Washington Post. Former CBS reporter Goldberg the author of “Bias” said, "The problem is that so many TV journalists simply don’t know how to think about certain issues until the New York Times and the Washington Post tell them what to think. Those big, important newspapers set the agenda that network news people follow."

In the case of the newspaper of record, the gay movement appears to hold in bondage the New York Times in more ways than one. NewsMax ran an article about Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine's inquiry into the Times' bias. (See: New York Times on Defensive.) Irvine said Richard Berke, a national political correspondent for the Times, spoke at a gathering of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

Irvine says that Berke assured the homosexual group that the Times would remain very receptive to the gay agenda because "three-fourths of those who regularly attend the daily meetings that determine what will be on the front page of the Times the next morning are 'not-so-closeted' homosexuals."

Sunday, August 05, 2007

This isn't Superstition it was Taught by St. John the Apostle and His Disciple

This is not superstition, but biblical and was taught by a disciple of St. John the Apostle as well as by all the early church fathers:


“I am the bread of life. {49} Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. {50} But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. {51} I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. {52} Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? {53} Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. {54} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. {55} For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. {56} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. {57} Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. {58} This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. [JOHN 6:48-58]




St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle and successor of St. Peter as bishop of Antioch, wrote: They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6 [A.D. 107]).
[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:kG3RaCtMDm0J:www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/nutsandbolts.html+whoever+eats+my+my+flesh&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8]



The Eucharist and all sacraments tells us that Christ isn’t “out of physical reach.” Each sacraments contains something material and something spiritual.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Eighth Grade Students to be Taught Homosexual Sexual Act that Increases HIV/AIDS Risk

Thomas More Law Center
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Dr.

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106



News Release -- For Immediate Release: August 2, 2007

Contact: Brian J. Rooney 734-827-2001





Montgomery County Public Schools Say Yes to Anal Sex, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transvestitism



ANN ARBOR, MI – A public school district’s program promoting anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestitism as normal sexual variations was recently approved by the Maryland State Board of Education despite strenuous opposition from several pro-family groups. Montgomery County Public School’s controversial sexuality curriculum for eighth and tenth grade students is the result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.



In response, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it will assist the pro-family groups in their appeal of the Education Board’s decision to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The Law Center will be assisted by Maryland attorney John R. Garza who has been involved in the curriculum fight for several years.



The Thomas More Law Center and John Garza represent Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and the Family Leader Network.



According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “I’m impressed with the principled and steadfast opposition by these pro-family groups to this outrageously hedonistic and life-threatening sexuality curriculum. The Law Center will do everything we can to assist them in their fight.”



The pro-family groups oppose the sex program on several grounds: (1) it teaches students that homosexuality is “innate,” which is an unproven theory; (2) it teaches students that anal sex is just another sexual option without warning students of the increased HIV/AIDS risk of anal sex, even with a condom; (3) it labels as “homophobic” children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality; and (4) it teaches students that transgenderism is just another “sexual orientation,” even though transgenderism has been classified as a mental disorder.



The Montgomery County Circuit Court may overturn the decision of the State Board of Education. The court may also stay the application of the sexuality curriculum while the appeal is pending. If the court affirms the decision of the State Board of Education, the case will be appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.



Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, who is handling the case, commented: “This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy. It should not be taught in the public school.”



The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org

Friday, August 03, 2007

Son Suing Mother and Lesbian Partner for Horrifying Abuse

Son Suing Mother and Lesbian Partner for Horrifying Abuse

By Hilary White

AKRON, Ohio, August 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 19 year-old Darrell Shaffer is suing his mother Mary Rowles, her lesbian partner Alice Jenkins, the Summit County Children's Services Board, the agency's former director, and agency social workers for the horrifying abuse and neglect he and his brothers suffered for years.

Jenkins and Rowles pleaded guilty and were convicted in 2003 of 55 counts of abuse and neglect that included savage beatings, starvation, being locked in a closet and forced to eat animal feces. When they were apprehended by police, the boys were found to be severely malnourished; one boy was 8 years old and weighed only 28 pounds.

In January 2004, the women were each sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and are being held at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville. Shaffer is the eldest of five boys who, at the time of the two women's arrest, were aged six, eight, ten, thirteen and fourteen. Their sister, 12 years old at the time, was not harmed, police said.

Shaffer is asking for $25,000 from each of the defendants. The suit says that local child services made at least three visits to the home between July 1998 and April 2003: "During each of these home visits, there was open, obvious and overwhelming evidence of ongoing abuse of, and neglect to [Shaffer] and his siblings. Nonetheless, defendants...took no further action to protect [Shaffer] and his siblings."

Mary Rowles, the children's mother, had been in a lesbian relationship with Alice Jenkins, described as the "man" in the relationship, for seven years at the time of the arrest. The children were told to call Jenkins "dad", and police said that although they were clearly afraid of their mother, they were "terrified" of Jenkins.

Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh said the boys told police that Jenkins beat them with a hammer, kicked one in the groin with steel-toed boots and forced them to eat dog and cat feces as punishment for sneaking out of their urine-soaked closet and stealing food.

Reports say that Rowles had "adversarial" relationships with the true fathers of her children, but at least one of the men applied for custody of two of the children and complained to Children's Services about the abuse. In May 2003 Brady Postlethwaite and his wife said they had repeatedly tried to get help for the children, but said "we were just called liars."

Testimony at a custody hearing in March 2001 revealed that Summit County Children's Services and Akron police were aware of the allegations but did nothing. Postlethwaite said he and his wife "were told if we made any more complaints we'd be arrested."

Before their convictions, Rowles and Jenkins told press they were proud to be gay.



_______________________________________________

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

The new Anti-Semitism in Europe is related to their anti-Americanism because both have courage and they loathe courage.

Nothing Worth Dying For

Richard Salbato 8-1-2007

“No greater love has man than to lay down his life for a friend.” These are the words of Christ describing what true love is. To understand these words you need to understand the meaning of life to a Christian and the meaning of death in the Bible. Christ says that if we live in Him, we will live forever and that sin brings death. As far as the body is concerned, everyone dies, both the sinner and the just. From a Biblical point of view, however, those who die in grace, never really die, but those in sin are already dead. How then do we, who never die, lay down our life for a friend?

Here Christ is talking about the earthly life and not the eternal life. He took on all the sins, the sufferings, the injustice, and the indifference of the world and laid down His life for all others. His being did not die, only his human body and even that rose up again, as ours will be at the end of the world.

How then do we lay down our life for a friend? Do we have to die? Yes, we do, but not always a physical death. We must die to any real attachments to this world and its personal comforts and temporary pleasures. There is nothing wrong with comforts, security, pleasures, even wealth, but Christians do not cling to these things. Christians cling to love of God and neighbor. This means laying down their lives for God and others. It means dying to self interest.

Christians do this when they have a child, which means giving up some of their own comforts, pleasures and independence to love another. Christians do this when they marry, which means giving up selfish independence to share their life with another. It is this unselfishness that describes the real Christian spirit.

The first Christians learned the hard way to practice true love of God giving up their lives. They marched to their death with joy simply for refusing to worship the false Roman Gods. Constantine the Great learned that sometimes you must even go to war to protect the freedom of people, especially the freedom of religion. He discovered that when the battle between good and evil is just, God will fight with you. God helped Constantine in war in the same way He helped Judas Machabees.

American Christians were willing to lay down their lives for freedom and justice from the King of England. Americans again laid down their lives to free slaves in the civil war. Americans again laid down their lives to free their European neighbors from injustice in World War I and II and had nothing to gain except to protect others. Americans went to the aid of China and the Philippines when they were attacked by Japan. Unlike the colonial powers of the middle ages (England, Portugal, Spain and France), America never asked for anything after helping these other countries. In fact, American poured money and help into Germany and Japan after defeating them.

Since World War II, it has been America that poured trillions of dollars in aid to the poor throughout the world, rebuilding Europe and defended the entire world from the threat of Communism. At this very minute an American Navy Hospital ship, with 500 doctors and thousands of nurses is touring South America giving free medical ad to the poorest of the poor.

Considering the above, why then are Christians and Americans so hated throughout the world today?

Nothing Worth Dying For

The answer to that question is that people are loosing faith in everything except their own comfort in the here and now. Recently the German author, Henry M. Broder debated a woman author (a secular-humanist) and she said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said: “It is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

I have to think of Blessed Alexandrina of Portugal who jumped out of a second story window to avoid being raped and ended up bed-ridden the rest of her life. http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/Alexandrina.htm But this secular humanist knows of nothing worth injury over. I am sure she would stand by and watch someone else being injured rather than risk anything to her own comfort.

Secular Humanists (many are Catholics) do not care about an afterlife, this life is the only thing they care about. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the feminist, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

There is a rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world. This is because the very existence of Israel challenges their peace. The fact that Islam is against the Jews being in Israel and Jerusalem, makes Europeans terrified. Rather than blame those who want war, they blame the Jews for resisting the war and Americans for supporting them.

When you consider that the word, Islam, means “submission”, the West Europeans have chosen submission (Islam) already. They hate anyone who is not willing to submit for the sake of peace. They have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be Red rather than dead. They hate people with a fighting spirit. The new Anti-Semitism in Europe is related to their anti-Americanism because both have courage and they loathe courage.

Christianity in Europe is almost dead.

The German author, Henryk M. Broder, recently told the Dutch Newspaper "DeVolkskrant" that young Europeans who love Freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will not exist twenty years from now.

“Europe is turning Muslim”, said Broder. He urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."

The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict that Europe is becoming Islamic.

Just consider the demographics.

1. - The number of Muslims in Contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million, not counting England.

2. - It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of All European children will be born to Muslim families.

3. - Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for newborn boys in Brussels , Amsterdam, Rotterdam , and other major European cities.

"I am not a Warrior," Broder says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." Consider that in all of Europe no one under the age of 65 has picked up arms in defense of their country. That task has been borne by the United States since Hitler surrendered in 1945.

Europeans apparently never read John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse."

"A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Right now only America is keeping the rest of the world free. I am quite confident that even Our Lady agrees with this, since She said so. It was on September 25, 1956, that Our Lady appeared to Sr. Mary Ephrem.

"It is the United States that is to lead the world to peace, the peace of Christ, the peace that He brought with Him from heaven."

"Dear children, unless the United States accepts and carries out faithfully the mandate given to it by heaven to lead the world to peace, there will come upon it and all nations a great havoc of war and incredible suffering.

“If, however, the United States is faithful to this mandate from heaven and yet fails in the pursuit of peace because the rest of the world will not accept or cooperate, then the United States will not be burdened with the punishment about to fall."

"Sin is overwhelming the world and punishment is not far away. ... Help me bring once again the sunshine of God's peace upon the world."

These prophesies are already being fulfilled? Who is really cooperating with America to bring peace to the world. I agree that we are not doing all we can do, especially in Sudan, but we are the only one doing anything. The United Nations can best be called Demonic and is doing nothing.

It is America that protected Europe from Communist Russia. It was America and the Holy Father that brought down the Berlin Wall and freed Eastern Europe. It was America that helped Afghanistan drive out Russia. It is America that protects Europe, South America, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, PI and many others.

Read the above prophesy again and see that in the end we will fail to bring peace to the world because we are not getting cooperation from other countries and a punishment will follow. Not, however, for Americans. So says Our Lady.

America might loose identity also

America was founded on Christian Moral and Natural God given rights. It is the first Constitutional Government in the history of the world, where even the democratic majority cannot take away these rights. By placing the power in the hands of people, limiting government power, and protecting minorities from the majority, American has become the most powerful economic country in the history of the world.

By having a philosophy of peace through strength, America has become the most powerful nation in the history of the world and yet never abused that power. America’s freedom has attracted people from all over the world for 200 years. Even today over 1.5 million people come into America every year. Because of the low birth rate of Americans, this immigration is very necessary for the American economy especially since America, like Europe is aging.

Because Americans are not having babies, without immigration America would soon have more people retired than working. Unlike the past, however, where immigrants learned the language, studied the constitution, and pledged loyalty to the Nation before becoming citizens, the new immigrants do none of these things.

Instead of coming to America legally the new immigrants come in many illegal ways. They do not assimilate in the society because they cannot. Being illegal they must stay in ethnic clicks for protection. They are abused and subject to the blackmailing of the ethnic gangs, like MS-15. These gangs extort money from them and exploit them to the point that the gangs become their government and not America. Once here illegally they are forced to continue breaking the law, with false identification, false bank accounts, fake names, and in most cases, taking cash for work, without paying Taxes.

As I said in an email, 40% of all workers in L.A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card. And because of the MS-15 gangs, 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles and 75% of people on the most wanted list are illegal aliens. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

If Americans were not so selfish, they would have the children needed to keep America going but since they are not, we need the million immigrants each year, but we do not need them here breaking the law and therefore becoming a nation within a nation and totally out of control. This same idea of nothing worth fighting for, nothing worth dying for, is why we have not solved the illegal immigration problem. “Saving my country and its values is not worth giving up my peace. Better to be raped than to get involved. Let them break the law.” Let me remind Catholics that you cannot do evil that good can come from it.

Russian Solution

America and Europe may not see the problem of a low birth rate but Russia does. For many years now Russia has sponsored Nashi youth camps, where they are attempting to get the young to have more children. They have even given large tax breaks to those who have children and heavy tax to those who do not. This much I can say is good.

But because the government is still basically atheist these Nashi camps are not good. Alcohol is banned, but sex is encouraged, and no contraceptives are allowed. Attempting to raise Russia's dismally low birthrate even by eccentric-seeming means might be understandable. Certainly, the country's demographic outlook is dire. The hard-drinking, hard-smoking and disease-ridden population is set to plunge by a million a year in the next decade. An already low population is dropping by 12% per year.

But the real aim of the youth camp is the Kremlin's newly-minted ideology of "Sovereign democracy". It is strongly reminiscent of the Tsarist era slogan: "Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality". The similarities to both the Soviet and Tsarist eras are striking. Slogans such as "Russia for the Russians" now attract the support of half of the population.

Consider that atheist, Communist Putin sees that having a strong birth rate and holding on to Russia’s national identity is important, and Islam sees that having a strong birth rate and holding on to religious identity is worth dying for, where does that leave the Christian West?

Islam is willing to die for their god, are you? Islam is willing to give up all comforts for their faith and future, are you? Have we men become feminized?

What are we willing to die for – our God, our children, our wife, our town, our nation, the poor thoughout the world, the oppressed in other countries, the sex trades, the rule of law, or nothing?

I believe if we are not willing to stand up and fight for these things, these people, we have no love.

Rick Salbato



Note:

Sorry for writing this in such obvious anger, but I have had hundreds of emails bad-mouthing my country and condemning any form of war or conflict as something evil. For this reason I wrote the Teaching of a just war, but even that did not stop the slanders. What irritates me is that I know America will not be able to stop the coming World War III, no matter how hard we try. In the end the world will suffer much more than it did under Hitler, but America will suffer less.

Read First Machabees and then tell me that the wars of Judas Machabees were unjustified.

Then read Second Machabees and see how Jerusalem simply gave up their freedom without a fight and became subject to the Romans, who ended up killing Christ and millions of Christians and Jews.

Take your pick, the justice of Judas Machabees or the cowardice of the Jews only a generation after his victory.

[http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/NothingToDieFor.htm]