From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. In his
22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin
Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999,
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. Scheuer became a public
figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book
Imperial
Hubris, in which he criticized many of the common United States and
Western world assumptions about the motives for Islamic
terrorism, and put these into the context of greater
Western-Islamic relations.
Scheuer left The Jamestown Foundation in
February 2009 from a position as Senior Fellow. He claimed in an anti-war.com article that he was fired by
the organization for his outspoken views on US-Israel relations.[1]
Jamestown's current president, Glen Howard, has pejoratively
likened Scheuer's views to those of congressman Ron Paul.
Biography
Scheuer was born in Buffalo NY and graduated from Canisius
College in 1974, and went on to earn an M.A. from Niagara
University in 1976 and another M.A. from Carleton
University in 1981.[2] He also
received a Ph.D. in British Empire-U.S.-Canada-U.K.
relations from the University of Manitoba in
1986.[3]
During his term at the CIA, he was an analyst and not a covert field operations
officer.
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.[4]
Osama bin
Laden stated in his September 7, 2007 message:
"If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like
to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against
us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard." [2][3]
Scheuer's latest book, Marching Toward Hell: America and
Islam After Iraq was released on February 12, 2008.
In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer
is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as "Mike".
He is portrayed as being occasionally frustrated with his
superiors' failure to aggressively target bin Laden.
Scheuer resigned in 2004. He is currently a news analyst for CBS News and formerly a
terrorism analyst for The Jamestown Foundation's
online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[5] He also
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."[6]
Publications
Marching
Toward Hell
Released in 2008, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam
After Iraq how the 2003 Iraq War has affected Al-Qaeda and the
United States. He argues that the instability in the Iraq War has
benefited Al-Qaeda without serving any U.S. interests.
Imperial
Hubris
One of the theses of his second 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.[7] 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 negligence among Intelligence Community
leaders even though dozens of serving officers provided the
commissioners with clear documentary evidence of that failure." [4]
In a videotape released around September 7, 2007 apparently by
Osama bin Laden, he personally recommended that anyone who wants to
understand why the United States is losing the war against him
should read Imperial Hubris.
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 first
edition of the book documents a number of areas in which Scheuer
believed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cooperated, although he
refutes these same connections in the revised edition citing the
incorrect intelligence that he drew his conclusions from. [6]
Views
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?".[8]
Osama bin
Laden
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 "prophecy... [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)
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 14, 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." [7], 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)
- "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama
bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United
States -- because it's gonna take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure
-- because these politicians prize their offices, prize the praise
of the media, and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again,
only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to
demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently
and with as much violence as necessary." -- to Glenn Beck, July 1,
2009
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."[9]
In February, 2005, Scheuer gave an interview in which he
discussed, among other things, Israeli lobbying in the United
States.[10] 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."
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)
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."[11]
- 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.[12]
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."[13]
On May 24, 2007, Ron
Paul and Scheuer held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington,
D.C. about the causes that led up to 9/11, American foreign policy
and its implications on terrorism, security and Iraq.[14] Paul
and Scheuer argued that Rudy Giuliani is wrong on security and
foreign policy and provided documentation about the unintended consequences of
interventionism - known to many in the intelligence world 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.[15]
On Larry King Live, September 7, 2007, Scheuer alluded to the
Fox News Republican Debate of September 5, 2007, where a Fox News
moderator accused Ron Paul of taking "marching orders" from Al
Qaeda. Scheuer said, "The truth of the matter is that it is all of
the Democrats and the Republicans, except perhaps for Mr. Paul and
Mr.
Kucinich, who are marching to Osama Bin Laden's drum." Larry King Live Transcript
The Doha
Debates
In April 2009, Scheuer participated in the Doha
Debates at Georgetown University in Washington DC, where he debated for the
motion "this house believes that it is time for the USA to get
tough on Israel" with fellow speaker Avraham Burg, former Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and
former Speaker of the
Knesset. Speakers against the motion were Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs and Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz. Burg and Scheuer won the debate, with 63% of the
audience voting for the motion. During the debate he was referred
to as a bigot by Alan Dershowitz after stating "the war in Iraq is
the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports
Israel". Alan Dershowitz stated that he had opposed the war in Iraq
and that "More Jews than any other ethnic group in America opposed
the war in Iraq".[16]
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.[17]
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.[18]
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.[19]
Criticism of George
Tenet
Main article: At the
Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
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 George Tenet's behavior before and 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."
Bibliography
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.
- Scheuer, Michael (2008). Marching Towards Hell: America and
Islam After Iraq. Free Press, Simon & Schuster. ISBN
0-74329-969-8.
Articles
External
links
Other
- Michael Scheuer Young Turks
Interview on Video
- Bin Laden Expert Steps
Forward - CBS
News, November 14, 2004
- Interview in 2004-08-02 The American
Conservative [10]
- C-Span discussion
(requires RealPlayer)
(current file -needs updating)
- 12-02-04 C-Span panel appearance on the War on Terror (no link
yet)
- “How Not to Catch a
Terrorist”, The Atlantic
Monthly, 2004-12
- BuzzFlash interview on January 5, 2005 [11]
- PBS Frontline interview on January 25, 2005 [12]
- Speech at Council on Foreign Relations on February 3, 2005 [13]
- BBC Radio 4, February 8, 2005 [14]
- Charles Goyette show, February 9, 2005: Part I / Part II
- CBC Radio 1, The Current, April 12, 2005 [15]
- Charles
Goyette show, February 25, 2005: [16]
- Michael Scheuer's interview with Scott Horton [17]
- On NPR's Morning Edition, July 7, 2005 [18]
- 34 (or more) quotations from Scheuer [19]
- 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 9, 2006
The Brian Lehrer Show
- After a Decade at War With
West, Al-Qaeda Still Impervious to Spies by Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post March 20, 2008
- CIA Antiwar Radio with Scott
Horton and Charles Goyette interview Michael Scheuer, Antiwar.com April 17,
2008 41 minute audio.
Notes and
references
- ^
"Lobby? What Lobby?". http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=14221.
- ^
"Terrorism Analyst, Former
CIA Officer To Speak". Canisius College. 2007-01-12. https://www.canisius.edu/newsevents/display_story.asp?iNewsID=4376&strBack=%2FDefault.asp. Retrieved
2008-11-08.
- ^
"Georgetown Biography". Georgetown University. http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/mfs47/. Retrieved
2009-08-09.
- ^
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
- ^
Global Terrorism Analysis.
- ^
"New America
Foundation : event -430- "Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational
Terrorism After 9/11
Conference will air live on
C-Span 2"". New America Foundation. Archived
from the original on
2005-11-07. http://web.archive.org/web/20051107043535/http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=430. Retrieved
2009-08-09.
- ^
Michael Scheuer (2004). Imperial hubris: Why the
West is Losing the War on Terror. Brassey's. ISBN
9781574888492. http://books.google.ca/books?id=lVaRkVnp9HUC&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
- ^
Foreign
Policy: Seven Questions: Fixing U.S.
Intelligence - May 16, 2006 (free registration needed to view
the article)
- ^
Amos, Deborah. "Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks
Heated Debate", Morning Edition, NPR, April 21, 2006
- ^
"Winning or Losing? An Inside
Look at the War on Terror", Council on Foreign
Relations, 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 1,
2006. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216964,00.html.
- ^
Antiwar.com Blog · Michael
Scheuer
- ^
Venue: National Press Club -
Upcoming
- ^
Reuters: U.S. candidate Paul assigns
reading to Giuliani. May 24, 2007.
- ^ "This House believes it's
time for the US to get tough on Israel - Transcript". The Doha
Debates. 2009-03-25. http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/debate.asp?d=48&s=5&mode=transcript. Retrieved
2009-04-07.
- ^
Softball on Hardball - Chris
Matthews gives Michael Scheuer a pass--again, The Weekly
Standard, 11/10/2005
- ^
Michael Scheuer Interviewed
by Tim Russert, fredschoeneman.com, November 30, 2004
- ^
Michael Scheuer, Through Our Enemies' Eyes (revised
edition). Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2006) p. 136.
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search