Does Michael Scheuer Represent the CIA? [Updated]
By Larry Johnson on May 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM in Current Affairs
Although Michael Scheuer shows up frequently on TV and in print as an authoritative commentator on matters pertaining to torture and terrorism, a careful look at his career and his writings raises serious questions about his competence. His latest oeuvre in the Washington Post is typical Scheuer. As I have pointed out in previous postings about Mr. Scheuer, he did not enter the CIA as operations officer. Rather he came in as an analyst. He was just a run of the mill analyst. He was not selected for the elite Career Trainee program and went to work in the European Division. He was not considered a talented analyst and, after a few years, wound up in the Counter Terrorism Center, which tended to be a dumping ground for middling analysts.
Scheuer did not go thru either the CIA paramilitary course or the CIA Ops course. Despite this lack of training and experience he was put in charge of the Counter Terrorism Center’s effort to find and get rid of Osama Bin Laden. How did he do? Well, let’s just say that Osama was able to organize and carry out the 9-11 attacks.
Anyway, Scheuer’s latest ranting in the Washington Post has stirred up quite a reaction among former CIA colleagues. One old CIA chief sent Michael Scheuer the following in response to the Washington Post op-ed:
Michael:
I read your recent op-ed in the Washington Post in which you stated the following:
Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their “moral compass,” a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder’s identifying them as “moral cowards.” Mulling Obama’s claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?
I feel obliged to ask you, Michael, in the light of that seemingly rather unprofessional and partisan political diatribe, to describe to me what particular examples from your own professional experience in the CIA you are relying upon in reaching the judgment that torture has actually “saved lives and property of Americans and their allies”.
I am correct, am I not, that you have had direct operational experience in the interrogation of suspected terrorists? I know for certain that you have likewise had extensive experience in producing authoritative analytical reports for policy makers in which you have attempted to fulfill their specific requirements for actionable intelligence from such sources. That also is correct, is it not? Have I mis-stated or exaggerated your claims to expertise?
With regard to the op-ed from which I quoted above: Critical comments back and forth in letters to the editor from inexperienced public citizens may be interesting to other readers, but in this case have not answered my own questions about how you arrived at your conclusions. I, like many of your admirers, have great respect for your extensive hands-on operational experience in this field. However, we need to know more about your professional credentials, including specific information to verify our assumption that your views are based on solid empirical evidence, objectively evaluated, and have not been influenced by partisan political bias. (One acquaintance of mine, another former CIA colleague of ours, accuses you of being what the French would call a “poseur” — a phony who falsely portrays himself as a macho “CIA operative” —- all hat and no horse, as they said about George W. Bush. I don’t buy that. Reassure me, please, Michael, that you are for real, and that your opinions are worthy of your exhalted professional reputation.)
Second: What’s your analysis of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson’s recent public statements, some of which are recounted in detail by Ray McGovern in the piece below?
Best regards,
Did you find anything insulting about this query? I did not. I thought it was a very reasonable request. But not Michael Scheuer, who wrote back to the group (he sent this to more than 20 former CIA officers which is why I am reprinting it):
I was going to answer this seriously, but having yesterday heard the black Woodrow Wilson agonize over how superior he and his morality are to all other Americans; and suspecting that most of you sympathize with the new brother Woodrow; and knowing that the original Woodrow brought America as close to fascism as it has ever been, I think I’ll refrain. But don’t worry, there are still plenty of Americans at CIA and in the military who will risk their lives and fortunes to allow the Black Woodrow and all of you to be smug, superior, and sanctimonious.
Scheuer
I have long thought Scheuer to be a bombastic, shallow fool. But I never suspected him of racism. Berating Barack Obama for the color of his skin is, in my opinion, bat-shit crazy. He could have tried to make the case that Obama is a 21st Century version of Wilson, but he did not. What makes Barack distinctive in Scheuer’s twisted world is that he is a black man.
This is not the first time Scheuer has gone on the record with bizarre statements that I think are reality challenged. He previously blamed Richard Clarke and the late FBI counter terror chief, John O’Neil for causing 9-11. He also stated on the Bill O’Reilly Show that FBI Director Robert Mueller is either a liar or an incompetent.
Today is Memorial Day and is a time for reflections and remembrance. In this vein I would like to suggest that we remember that Michael Scheuer does not embody nor represent the CIA. Fortunately Scheuer is not typical of the men and women I was privileged to work with. He is an aberration who is being given a platform by the media for spouting his venom and prejudice. I think he ought to come with a warning label that he does not represent the CIA.
[UPDATE] If you want some additional insight into the twisted soul of Michael Scheuer simply read his book, Imperial Hubris where he opines:
(pp 241-242): “Killing in large numbers is not enough to defat our Muslim foes. With killing must come a Sherman-like razing of infrasgtructure. Roads and Irrigation systems; bridges, power plants, and crops in the field, fertilizer plants and grain mills–all these and more will need to be destroyed to deny the enemy its support base. Land mines, moreover, will be massively reint;roduced to seal borders and mountain passes too long, high, or numerous to close with US soldiers. As noted, such actions will yield large civilian casualties, displaced populations, and refugee flows. Again, this sort of bloody-minded is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America’s only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world.
Note, this “brilliance” comes from a guy who does not speak a lick of Arabic, has no formal study or training in Islam or the Arab world, but, according to what he has written, sees no problem with the slaughter of women and children simply because they are muslims.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
