The growing clout of Lake Jackson's Ron Paul

[RLENT]

I like to argue concepts, thoughts and ideas,

Then:

(click me ---->) Interview with Michael Scheuer in American Conservative Magazine

 

[greg334]

What bothers me about people show worked in the intel end of our government and write books is it simply shows the lack of creditiblity they have and at what level their integrity has been comprimised by the need to make a buck.

I thought that the CIA was right in having a non-disclosure and a non-authoring provisions in their employment contract, simular to the one the FBI had under Hoover. They never should have allowed it to be changed but again it was a thing to modrenize our intel groups. If this was still the case, we wouldn't have the plame situation where the person was setup and made millions off of the work she didn't do.

 

[RLENT]

What bothers me about people who (?) (my correction) worked in the intel end of our government and write books is it simply shows the lack of creditiblity they have and at what level their integrity has been comprimised by the need to make a buck.

Yeeaah ...... you do understand that all of his books were written based on open source material, which is unclassified and in the public domain, available to anyone right ?

And heavens yes - it must be entirely for the money - not that he could have possibly been motivated in the public interest (no one ever does that )

I thought that the CIA was right in having a non-disclosure and a non-authoring provisions in their employment contract, similar to the one the FBI had under Hoover.

Sounds like a great way to promote transparency in government ...... and let the sun shine in ......

"A Phoenix investigation has discovered that Anonymous does not, in fact, want to be anonymous at all — and that his anonymity is neither enforced nor voluntarily assumed out of fear for his safety, but rather compelled by an arcane set of classified regulations that are arguably being abused in an attempt to spare the CIA possible political inconvenience.

In the Phoenix’s view, continued deference by the press to a bogus and unwanted standard of secrecy essentially amounts to colluding with the CIA in muzzling a civil servant — a standard made more ridiculous by the ubiquity of Anonymous’s name in both intelligence and journalistic circles.

When asked to confirm or deny his identity in an interview with the Phoenix last week, Anonymous declined to do either, and said, "I’ve given my word I’m not going to tell anyone who I am, as the organization that employs me has bound me by my word."

"The requirement that someone publish anonymously is rare, almost unheard-of, particularly if the person is not in a covert position," says Jonathan Turley, a national-security-law expert at George Washington University Law School. "It seems pretty obvious that the requirement he remain anonymous is motivated solely by political concerns, and ones that have more to do with the CIA."

Upon reviewing Scheuer’s manuscripts, the CIA could have done what national-security agencies have done in the past with employees’ works that were based on open (i.e., unclassified or publicly available) sources, but whose wide distribution might be problematic: stamp a "secret" or "top secret" classification on it so it never sees the light of day. Yet according to intelligence-community sources, this really wasn’t an option with Scheuer’s work, given the unusual origins of Through Our Enemies’ Eyes.

"That book actually started as an unclassified manual in 1999 for new counterterrorist officers working bin Laden and Sunni extremism," says one veteran CIA terrorism specialist. "Scheuer had written it at the request of his successor as Alec station chief, who specifically wanted it to be something that was drawn from open sources in the Arab and Islamic worlds for two reasons: one, so people could take it out of the building and digest it at their leisure, and two, because he wanted new officers to appreciate how much is actually out there that’s useful that isn’t classified, particularly if you have a context for it."

From:

The secret history of Anonymous

 

[Pilgrim]

Michael Scheuer has been seen in the print and broadcast media quite a bit since his retirement from the CIA in 2004, and IMHO seems to be very knowledgeable in the area of foreign affairs with a lot of sensible ideas to offer. A good example is the attached article, written in Oct. 2009; when read in hindsight it would seem that the current administration would do well to pay more attention to what he has to say.

Get Nasty or Go Home | Foreign Policy

Although I've never been much of a Ron Paul fan, Scheuer's endorsement of him would certainly lead me to take a second look at him if he runs again for national office. I especially like his idea of auditing the Federal Reserve.

 

[aristotle]

Tonight, I watched an interview with Michael Scheuer on The O"Reilly Factor. Mr Scheuer was beside himself with Obama's weak response to the Nigerian terrorist who attempted to down Flight 253 over Detroit. The message from Scheuer seemed to be President Obama needs to get serious. Really fast.

Obama is consumed with promoting his domestic agenda. Being in denial about terrorism and its attendant threat to America is not only dangerous, one might conclude it is official policy.

 

[layoutshooter]

My personal belief is that Obama has no intention to face terrorism and might even be encoraging them in private. At the very least it is becoming more and more clear that he is far more concerned with turning the U.S. into another leftist mess than doing the job that the Constitution requires he do.