CIA Critic of U.S. War on Terror Resigns

The shit is about to hit the fan!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=7&u=/nm/20041111/ts_nm/security_cia_dc

A CIA analyst who wrote a book that criticized the U.S. war on terror has resigned from the spy agency after it effectively banned him from publicly discussing his views, his publicist said on Thursday.

Michael Scheuer, whose book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" was signed as "anonymous" and published this summer, will resign effective Friday after 22 years at the Central Intelligence Agency.

In a statement, Scheuer said the CIA had not forced him to resign, "but I have concluded that there has not been adequate national debate over the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and the forces he leads and inspires, and the nature and dimensions of intelligence reform needed to address that threat."

He intends to speak to the media over the next several weeks, including an appearance on the CBS show "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

Scheuer's statement said senior leadership had allowed the intelligence officers working against al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to be made scapegoats for pre-Sept. 11 failures.

Mr. Scheuer, thanks for your 22 years of service to our country. You did the right thing.

I think his service may have only just begun ...

:D

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

His most recent book "Imperial Hubris" has been on the New York Times bestseller list. It has raised controversy over his assertions that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and will continue to be attacked because:

U.S. government supports Israel and is indifferent to the Palestinians
U.S. and western troops on the Arabian Peninsula
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
U.S. support of countries that oppress Muslims such as Russia, India and China
U.S. pressure on Arabs to keep oil prices low
U.S. support for tyrannical governments

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Michael+Scheuer&btnG=Google+Search

eom

...in conducting the war on terror. I can't wait to hear what he has to say!!!! :evilgrin:

many TV appearances and many other people. Also the 9-11Commission Report, etc.

= press, what 4th estate?
shit = Bu$h and Co.
Unless Bu$h is caught humping a donkey and even then ....

I read the book - it is incrediby powerful.

Anyone who hasn't read it, needs to...it is that good.

He better be ready to be smeared, and smeared bad.

He's a spook though, I bet he can handle a lot.

He tells it like it is, and it looks as if he has only just begun.

although any factual dumping on * is good, why couldn't this guy have done this before Nov. 2?

Although to be sure before the election there was a lot of crapola known about the incompetence and boobery of this admin, and the morans didn't care about that, so more shit hitting the fan probably wouldn't have made any difference.

I hope a lot of these insiders start coming out with the truth about this corrupt administration.

:kick:

I have read his book, and while I do not agree with all his suggestions, I do salute this patriot for his service to the country.

I wish him well in the private sector.

but he did say that the IW was a "Christmas gift" to OBL.

I also heard yesterday that Tenet said he expressed doubts to Chimp about the IW.

:kick:

get back up there on the first page

Oh...this is too goood to be true!
Our very own Daniel Ellsberg!
bhn

Providing an interventionist excuse whenever necessary to meddle in the affairs of targeted nations.

If this guy is publishing it is with agency approval.

Whether or not the CIA approved it, it is compelling reading.

It struck me that Scheuer was arguing against Western intervention in Muslim nations. Reading the book, I couldn't find the "interventionist excuse" you mentioned. Not trying to be angry or disagreeable...just curious about what makes you say that. Did I miss something?

...I don't accept the premise that al qaeda is anything but a state sponsored organization, manipulated by the intel agencies who benefit politically from its limited existence. That would be the intel agencies of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United States, and Israel. Zarquawi for example is little more than a creation of the media meant to link the international "terrorist" threat to what is in essence a war of national liberation from a colonial occupier. If our war fails, which it will, the paradigm of international terrorism needs to be resuscitated.

The "international terrorist threat" is a poor cousin to the cold war paradigm it is designed to replace. If you can't see how the "terrorist" threat was used to inject US forces into Iraq and elsewhere I can't explain it to you. This book falls into the category of a fall back position and plausible denial. He's rehabilitating the tautology of a failing justification. It now needs to stand on its own, the linkage to a failed war needs to be undone at some point. It's an artificially manufactured dialectic.

I haven't read the book, because most of the stuff written by former CIA is so full of disinformation, I can't read more than 30 to 60 pages before realizing that it is little more than propaganda. I've read the articles about him or that he published, I just don't accept his paradigm.

Actually I won't pick it up. I'll speed read the first few chapters and I'll probably do what I do with most open market CIA publications, put it back on the shelf. I like their country studies though.

I think you will be surprised. I actually was unnerved that the author comes off as almost respectful of bin Laden. You really need to read it before passing judgment.

I'll wait. Hummm...hummm hmmm hmmm...

The secret history of Anonymous
The author of Imperial Hubris is unmasked and says he fears for his job at the CIA, not for his life at the hands of Al Qaeda
BY JASON VEST

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03949394.asp


<So if liberals seem ecstatic that yet another career national-security official is blasting the Bush administration for unnecessarily invading Iraq and bungling the so-called war on terror, they’re also horrified by Anonymous’s apparent advocacy (largely rhetorical, actually) of a military campaign that includes "killing in large numbers" and "a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure" as part of "relentless, brutal and blood-soaked defensive military action until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us." <snip>

<According to Scheuer, the manuscript was at first denied release because the board took issue with the book’s brief favorable discussion of Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" theory, which posits that antagonism between Western and Islamic cultures (among others) will drive world conflict in the coming years.<snip>

Yeah, right.

<snip>Or, as Scheuer put it in an interview with the Phoenix last Friday morning, though he doubts that any form of diplomacy is likely to make for a better world vis-à-vis the "War on Terror," his call for a purely militaristic approach is premised on the idea that current US policies won’t change. "It’s less about advocacy," he said, "than provocation for debate."<snip>

Like I say, I don't accept the assumptions. I also don't need someone else to interpret the world for me.

The anonymous stuff is just hype.

wasn't the phony WMD claim, then it was the claim Iraq was better off without Saddam, and if not that, then Iraq was better off with democracy. Bush kept blabbing about the terrorist threat but it was extremely unlikely in Iraq. But a lot of people in Congress bought his absurd arguments (or went along with him for whatever other reasons) so that he got his way. I think Cheney was pushing the CIA to write reports the way he wanted and Tenet was a total wuss and went along, pleasing the big boss. These guys, Cheney, Tenet, etal., are all sociopaths.

... and with fanfare.

n/t