Sep 08 2007

Scheuer’s Shenanigans

Published by at 11:02 am under All General Discussions

Ex CIA agent Michael Scheuer, supposedly this nation’s best defense against al-Qaeda and Bin Laden leading up to 9-11, is out claiming Bin Laden is ‘winning”:

Scheuer spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit.

Discussing the video with CBS Saturday Early Show anchor Maggie Rodriguez, Scheuer said, “First of all, the setting is very relaxed, very comfortable. He is not in his camouflaged jacket. There’s no rifle. What he is trying to say is that he is under no pressure from the Americans. The Americans are failing in their effort to kill him, and in their effort to destroy al Qaeda.”

Of our progress in battling al Qaeda, Scheuer said, “It points directly to the fact that we failed utterly in Afghanistan to send enough either intelligence officers or military people.

Scheuer is obsessed with the man he failed to get. al-Qaeda is not winning, they are losing and the Muslim street is taking up arms against them and swearing on the Koran to destroy them. Scheuer would call World War II a failure since we never ‘got’ Hitler. But we should be aware of Scheuer’s culpability in regards to Bin Laden. I found something striking in this analysis of the CIA failures leading up to 9-11 and Scheuer’s apparent part in these failures:

Indeed, the OIG report states bluntly that “most of its officers did not have the operational experience, expertise, and training necessary to accomplish their mission in an effective manner.”

Is that scathing assessment in any way connected to the mismatch between Scheuer’s mission and his academic career? In 1986, Scheuer earned a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. This school has earned an international reputation in the field of grain-storage technology, but it is not exactly known for its contribution to the study of foreign policy. In any event, given the wholly irrelevant nature of Scheuer’s doctoral research–his dissertation traced the comings and goings of an obscure Canadian diplomat in the years before World War II–assigning him to run the bin Laden section was of a piece with, indeed, can be taken as a symbol of, the entrenched neglect of Islamic terrorism within the agency.

As part of its mandate, the OIG assessed the quality of the CIA’s counterterrorist “analytic products,” that is, its studies of bin Laden and al Qaeda, in the relevant period. It found that “important elements were missing.” It seems that when facts were gathered, “discussion of implications was generally weak.” But facts were not always gathered. Indeed, “a number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all.” In a conclusion unquestionably bearing on Scheuer’s tenure, it found that there had been no “strategic assessment of al Qaeda by CTC or any other component” and that “no comprehensive report focusing on UBL [Osama bin Laden]” had been produced in the period running from 1993 to September 11, 2001. In other words, in 1996, after Scheuer was assigned the job of countering Osama bin Laden, he never bothered with the first and most elementary task of intelligence tradecraft: assembling and evaluating the known facts about his principal target.

Emphasis mine. So Scheuer had time to do a detailed dissertation on some osbcure and unknown spy from before World War II but couldn’t find the time to develop a report on Bin Laden, even after the African Embassy bombings on the USS Cole? Basically no one should be listening to Scheuer on anything. He is out making money by plying his experience and role in the events leading up to 9-11. Talk about blood money.

29 responses so far

29 Responses to “Scheuer’s Shenanigans”

  1. cali_sun says:

    Scheuer must really feel emboldened since OBL mentioned him in his rantings. Anytime time this man is on TV, he claims we have failed to get OBL, yet he totally failed, writing a book. He, and Clark are wuite a pair.
    Looking at the imrpoved OBL 2007, call me skeptical, I do not believe it is him, but it is just me. Besides, what a coincidence, that he wears the same clothing as he did in 2004?
    He really shilling for the libs to be elected, and I believe he achieved just the contrary.
    Scheuer paying wise guy is all he can do, when it came to actions, he failed, plain and simple.

  2. DubiousD says:

    I have heard it said that Scheuer’s 2003 book “Through Our Enemies’ Eyes” warned of a Saddam/al-Qaeda nexis. But Scheuer’s revised edition in 2006 flatly debunked any Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship.

    The point being I find it ridiculous that Scheuer would be casting stones at the Bush administration now when Scheuer himself was warning of a Saddam-al-Qaeda relationship as late as 2003… nearly two years after 9/11.

    OTOH, if Scheuer is right and there was no relationship, Scheuer only has himself to blame because he was supposed to be the CIA’s point man on all things al-Qaeda, and his argument back then is identical to Bush’s position now. If the intelligence well was poisoned, the arsenic stains are on Scheuer’s fingers.

    BTW, AJ, did you notice Osama heaped praise on Scheuer in his recent video?

  3. Schuer is another in a long line of Clintonistas who have been spinning like a top since 9/11, in order to obviate any responsibility they had in not only coddling and enabling Bin Laden, but for allowing 9/11 to happen thru their own incompetence!

    This includes most of the upper leadership of the CIA and FBI, during, and prior to 9/11, and a partial list includes:

    Bill Clinton
    Sandy Berger
    George Tenet
    Cofer Black
    Richard Clarke
    Michael Schuer
    Paul Pillar
    Tony Zinni
    Paul Bremer
    Larry Johnson (he was never anything more than a lackey at the CIA for 4 years, 20 years ago, but he’s included here for his so-called “expertise” on terrorism, and his INfamous OpEd in July of 2000 that said the terrorism threat to the US was being overplayed!)
    Valerie Plame & buffoon, er, husband Joe Wilson

    George Bush’s biggest mistake, since taking office, is that on the morning of 9/12, he didn’t call in the entire senior leadership of the CIA and FBI, and FIRE them on the spot!

    A drastic house-cleaning of these closet incompetent Clintonistas not only would’ve been a strong signal to the other seditionist Anti-Americans Leftists who inhabit all our major branches of Govt, including the CIA, FBI, State Department and NSA, etc., it would’ve prevented most of the so-called major “scandals” that George Bush has had to endure, while fighting the GWOT on over the past six years, including Plamegate, the leaks to the NYT/MSM of the secret prisons, NSA programs, etc.

    Bush’s biggest problem, just like his father, is his misplaced loyalty to individuals that he thinks likes him, and trust him, and work for him.

    As the list of people I’ve put above shows, the only thing these seditionist Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi types really care about, is CYA and destroying Bush and/or America for political gain.

    It’s a mistake that I would not have made!

  4. DubiousD says:

    Gotta love this observation by Gabriel Schoenfield over at Weekly Standard:

    “Scheuer’s integrity is more radically called into question by his own false statements about his career, including his 2005 claim in the correspondence section of Commentary that he was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medal in part for “supply[ing] all of the information used in the federal indictment of Osama bin Laden.” Osama bin Laden was indicted in 1998. Scheuer was given his CIA medal in 1995, three years before the indictment and one year before he was assigned to the UBL Station.”

  5. MerlinOS2 says:

    Scarry Larry is taking Viagra overdoses since OBL didn’t give him a personal shoutout.

  6. MerlinOS2 says:

    Interesting commentary on Scheuer by one of the Powerline guys.


    JOE WILSON was not, of course, the only CIA-related political opponent of the Bush administration who emerged during the run-up to the 2004 election. In July 2004, CIA analyst Michael Scheuer published his strange book Imperial Hubris (by “Anonymous”), which attacked American foreign policy related to the war on terrorism. (Scheuer was identified as the “Anonymous” author of the book by the Boston Phoenixeven before the book’s official publication date.)
    In the epilogue to the paperback edition, Scheuer stated that he “was never told why the CIA permitted publication.” Following publication of the book, the CIA permitted Scheuer “anonymously” to criticize the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror in media interviews until his criticisms extended beyond the administration to the intelligence community. (Scheuer left the Agency last November–the week after the election.)

  7. kathie says:

    Scheuer says that OBL is winning………I’m wondering, what it is that he thinks he’s winning? We may not have gotten OBL, but we have his number and they will connect at some point. I’m betting that we will get him before he rules Saudi Arabia.

  8. DubiousD: a GREAT article, and one that only emphasizes what I said above.

    The sad part, Bush played right into the hands of the CYA’ing, lying incompetent Clintonistas, like Schuer, Tenet, Black, Zinn, Berger, Clarke, et. al., and ended up enabling them, instead of ferreting them out, and holding them accountable!

  9. Terrye says:


    I am not sure it is that simple. Immediately after 9/11 no one was really sure what was going to happen and if Bush had started firing people right then and there, who was going to replace them? Believe it or not I think the main concern at that point was whether or not there was another attack coming at any moment. And besides, these guys were the establishment. A lot of these people were not just Clintonistas or something…they were people who had years in the field.

    You go to war with the army you have. And I am afraid the same is true with the CIA. Even if people like Tenet were fired there were still all sorts of career people, some more competent than others to deal with.

    No, I don’t think it would have helped to just start firing people, unless of course you started firing them 5 years before 9/11.

  10. MerlinOS2 says:


    I have to fully agree with the commentary found here. 

    However, when the enemy cites the work of a former intelligence analyst due to the level of unseemly publicity that individual has attracted, it is time to question the role of the “retired” community members that now speak so frequently in national media. (This is to say nothing of the entirely contemptible leaks by intelligence insiders that have so damaged the country’s capabilities across its most sensitive programs in favour of transient political advantage.)


  11. Terrye says:

    In other words, the problem was not just political, it was institutional.

  12. Terrye says:

    For instance, what intelligence agency on the planet was doing any better? Other than the Israelis and even they did not seem to be aware of the fact that Saddam had either hid or destroyed his weapons stockpiles.

    And I remember in 1999 seeing a special on ABC about Saddam and Osama and how tight they were and they used all sorts of people as sources.

    No, I don’t think that just firing a few people would have made a lot of difference at that point.

  13. Terrye: I will put a quote up, from the Wiki, pertaining to an “engagement” that we went thru that was way worse than 9/11, and the aftermath of which was worse by a matter of degrees than post-9/11:

    Investigations and blame
    President Roosevelt appointed an investigating commission, headed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts to report facts and findings with respect to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was the first of many official investigations (nine in all). Both the Fleet commander, Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, and the Army commander, Lieutenant General Walter Short (the Army had been responsible for air defense of Hawaii, including Pearl Harbor, and for general defense of the islands against hostile attack), were relieved of their commands shortly thereafter. They were accused of “dereliction of duty” by the Roberts Commission for not making reasonable defensive preparations. None of the investigations conducted during the War, nor the Congressional investigation afterward, provided enough reason to reverse those actions. The decisions of the Navy and War Departments to relieve both was controversial at the time and has remained so. However, neither was court-martialed as would normally have been the result of dereliction of duty. On May 25, 1999, the U.S. Senate voted to recommend both officers be exonerated on all charges, citing “denial to Hawaii commanders of vital intelligence available in Washington”.

    Now, you will seize upon the last sentance, which I purposefully left in, missing the point totally, that this occurred 58 years after the fact in an atmosphere of liberalism and revisionism that likes to remove blame from anyone (except White, Anglo-Saxon Christian, Straight Men; but that’s a different story!)

    The fact is, Admiral Kimmel and Gen Short ignored very real advice, and guidance and intel indications, to heighten their state of readiness, defense, and training, that at the least, would have mitigated the casualties and damage that ocurred as a result of the bombings.

    They were relieved, and justly so, and it was during the outbreak of the worst war the world has ever seen.

    And as the quote makes clear, subsequent investigations found NO reason to overturn the results.

    Only the US Congress, in 1999, playing upon revistionist history, and PC’ness, and buying into typical nosensical Leftist conspieracy theories, such as has become mainstream Democratic beliefs concerning post 9/11, tried to make it appear that the “vital intel” was held back on purpose by Washington, from the Commanders at Pearl Harbor; which is again, typical Hollywood/Leftist nonsense and falacy.

    So, yes, the correct action, was to relieve the commanders, just as the President had a DUTY, on 9/12, to fire the incomptent individuals responsible for 9/11; and the subsequent 9/11 investigations, including the farsical Congressional Partisan-hack fest, that contained Jamie Gorelick, one of the most egregious of all Leftist hacks responsible for the incompetent atmosphere that contributed to 9/11 happening!

    Instead, the President enabled the incompentents, who not only enabled the harm to come to America, but also enabled them to utilize the resources of the United States Government to attack the President himself, and undermine our very survival, for political partisan hack purposes, only!

    Not a banner day for our President, and extremely poor leadership and judgement!

  14. In other words, the problem was not just political, it was institutional.

    Left by Terrye on September 8th, 2007

    Yes Terrye, you are correct as well!

    Merlin, you continue to amaze with the outstanding links you provide!


  15. MerlinOS2 says:


    I found that blog about 2 months ago on a search for something else.

    I stopped my other search and went back and started at day 1 of that blog and read it end to end in one sitting.

    Quality commentary from one end to the other.

  16. lurker9876 says:

    I had wondered why Bush kept these incompetents for so long.

    Kent’s Imperative looks good.

  17. MerlinOS2 says:

    For those who don’t have a grasp on it, there would be a whole new awakening if you realized that we have more people working outside the historic intel community now than on the inside.

    We are this year putting together our first Billion dollar authorization for out sourcing intel functions.

    Go to any agency and you will see the mix of the blue and green badges all over the place.

    The inside blues are being drawn off for the bucks of going green.

    There are a lot of issues in this whole structure that are still being worked out.

    The site I linked to covers this issue in depth and gives reason to pause and think about the implications of how all this can play out and potential bias insertion for all sorts of agendas and reasons.

    But that is just one facet of what they cover in their posts.

    It is a group blog of members of the community and they bring points to the fore that are worthy of discussion.

    A quality blog, well beyond the fluff of most day to day blogging clogging the bit stream.

  18. MerlinOS2 says:

    Factor in that the blues on the inside are at entry level getting stuck in some of the most high dollar living expense areas in the country and you see the appeal of going green rather than staying and playing.

    Plus, believe it or not, some of our in house projects are being limited simply because the growth of all of the groups involved are running into walls like trying to figure out how to get enough electrical power to power up what they need to run.

    I have heard stories from those on the inside I know where whole floors of computers had to be shut down during peak use periods because they have been unable to upgrade the power distribution from outside supplies.

    Sure they have built the new infrastructure withing their complex, it is just that the power source can’t upgrade their transmission stuff and don’t have any reserve generation capacity to add on the new load.

  19. MerlinOS2 says:

    Power distribution and generation is not necessarily local.

    For example near me I have a major power plant that dwarfs the combined size of the local power generation capacity.

    But not a drop of that power is fed into the local grid.

    All of the output of that plant crosses the line from Florida to Georgia to feed into the grid to power up Atlanta.

    And they are looking at having to expand to meet the need.

  20. MerlinOS2 says:


    First what you have to know is just exactly who is the Kent they named the blog after.

    I will give you a hint, it is not one of them.

    Here is the condensed version.

    Kent was the guy way up in the food chain that was crucial into the estimates before the Cuban Missile Crisis that proposed it would never happen and wasn’t supported by the Intel.

    When the U-2 pictures got shoved into their face, he didn’t bluster and try to deflect, but pulled everyone together and said basically “ok folks we screwed the pooch, now lets figure out why and how we are going to fix it”.

    They went back and revisited every scrap of evidence , notes, source feeds and said where did we pick up stuff that confirmed what the reality was and why did we discount all that data compared to other sources to reach the wrong conclusion we stood for until we were countered by hard data.

    He really turned things inside and out to understand the workings of how the correct data got minimized and just what were the motives , biases and cultural agendas that tamped down the real true hints and all the dynamics associated with that.

    Sort of why didn’t alternative choices penetrate the group think.

    Intel is not an exact science.

    There is a continuing battle inside and outside the community that you can build math models to project a lot of things and others who say it is a black art of human thought processes that will never be put into computer form.

    Kent originated the major drive to document just how analysists were getting from point a to point b and where they screwed up and why.

    He started or picked up the importance of already existing ideas of doing the best internal documentation of just how and why intel conclusions are arrived at. To build a library of trade craft so in the future the same bad lessons don’t have to be re learned.