Michael Scheuer: Media Hates CIA, 'Think it's Fun to Put People at Risk'
Fox News's Steve Doocy and former CIA officer Michael Scheuer took the gossip site Gawker to task Friday for claiming to out the identity of the CIA officer responsible for orchestrating the Osama bin Laden raid in May. "I think most of the media is anti-Agency, and they think it's fun to put people at risk," said Scheuer.
[VIDEO BELOW THE FOLD]
Scheuer also pointed out that the story was not getting nearly as much coverage as the Valerie Plame scandal. "I think it's much worse. Ms. Plame probably didn't have a lot of enemies around the world that remember going to come looking for them. But this fellow responsible for Osama bin Laden's death or in part for it is certainly at risk." He further noted that the mainstream media has a history of bias against American intelligence services. "For example, you know, the Pulitzer Prize for treason, if I remember correctly, went to the woman at the Washington Post who exposed the Agency's black sites during the rendition program. So the media and the media establishment rewards this kind of conduct," said Scheuer.
Doocy also pointed out that there was no evidence that the individual highlighted by Gawker is even the agent in question. "Steve, the average high school yearbook staff has more integrity and common sense than Gawker or AP. They might have put an entirely mistaken personality on someone's bull's eye. It's an extraordinarily reckless unprofessional thing to do," said Scheuer. "The news was bin Laden was killed. The officers in the military and the Agency responsible for that should have been congratulated, end of story. No one needs to know anybody who was involved in that operation."
A transcript of the exchange, which aired at 6:51 a.m. on Friday, follows.
FNC
"Fox & Friends"
07/29/2011
6:51 a.m. Eastern
STEVE DOOCY: CIA Agents do their jobs without the expectation of big paychecks, fame or recognition. They don't want the spotlight. So it's not exactly helpful when your job is all about top secret observations. But the web site called "Gawker" now trying to expose one particular agent, an agent Al-Qaeda would love to find and probably kill, the one who tracked down Osama bin Laden. Michael Scheuer is the former chief of the CIA bin Laden unit and the author of Osama bin Laden joins us from D.C. Good morning to you.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Good morning sir.
DOOCY: The back story is the Associated Press after the bin Laden kill did a story about this particular unit and they identified that, perhaps, the guy who was behind it was in this White House photograph and then Gawker this lousy web site out there did the math, figured out, oh, that's the guy and then outed a CIA agent!
SCHEUER: Well, you know, it's typical of most of the American media, Steve, that they're very anti-Agency. The idea that the Agency was at the center of killing bin Laden probably stuck in a lot of their throats. And now we see people like Gawker and AP who have previously published stories about agency officers who are still serving and/or undercover. It's just an amazing situation in America where people are rewarded for in essence aiding and abetting the enemy.
DOOCY: Well, the problem for this person and we're not going to identify who he is in that picture. We've all seen that picture. We have no idea who most of the people are. But his well being is now in peril, I would imagine. I mean, if there were an al-Qaeda operative who learned where the guy lived, he could be in trouble.
SCHEUER: I think it's very dangerous to expose anybody who was involved with killing Osama bin Laden. Bin laden was a beloved figure in the community of Islamists. And certainly, exacting revenge for bin Laden against the person who was involved in his killing would be a huge feather in someone's cap.
DOOCY: Absolutely. Let's go back a couple of years, Michael, during the George Bush administration when Valerie Plane was inadvertently outed as a CIA. operative. There was an investigation. There was a lot of trouble for people. Why no outrage here? Same thing happened, didn't it?
SCHEUER: I think it's much worse. Ms. Plame probably didn't have a lot of enemies around the world that remember going to come looking for them. But this fellow responsible for Osama bin Laden's death or in part for it is certainly at risk. As secretary Gates said about the identities of the SEALS, sir.
DOOCY: Absolutely. So why would this web site Gawker do this?
SCHEUER: As I said, I think most of the media is anti-Agency. And they think it's fun to put people at risk. They don't like some of the things the Agency does. For example, you know, the Pulitzer Prize for treason, if I remember correctly, went to the woman at the "Washington Post" who exposed the Agency's black sites during the rendition program. So the media and the media establishment rewards this kind of conduct.
DOOCY: And ultimately, from what I understand, Michael, is they published the picture of the guy and identified, yeah, that's the guy right there. It was completely unsubstantiated, they didn't have anybody who said "yeah, that's the guy." They just said "ok, according to what we figured out, that's him."
SCHEUER: Yeah. Steve, the average high school yearbook staff has more integrity and common sense than Gawker or AP. They might have put an entirely mistaken personality on someone's bull's eye. It's an extraordinarily reckless unprofessional thing to do.
DOOCY: It certainly is. And ultimately, is it news in your estimation?
SCHEUER: The news was bin Laden was killed. The officers in the military and the Agency responsible for that should have been congratulated, end of story. No one needs to know anybody who was involved in that operation.
DOOCY: Yeah. Absolutely. It's a crazy thing. Irresponsible thing to do on the part of Gawker. All right, Michael Scheuer joining us from DC. Thank you, sir, have a great weekend.
SCHEUER: You, too, sir, thank you.
# # #
- Eric Ames's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Of course, this operates from
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:59pm.
Of course, this operates from the premise that black sites and rendition are desirable.
"No one needs to know anybody who was involved in that operation."
That's right, citizen. Yours is not to question! Your government will determine what government-approved information you "need" to know.
if one "Black site"
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 5:18pm.
saved one American life, so be it.
I want you and your family/loved ones safe from Radical Muslim Crazies.
there are back folks out here wanting to kill you and your family, let the Black ops folks do their job.they are required for your safety..
The Ones Who Walked Away from
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:07pm.
The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
Ok.....?
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:10pm.
Yeah, I read that short story too, sick freak. What does it have to do with your aching for a weak-as-possible America?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The Cure
Submitted by canuck on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:06pm.
Put an agent at risk and have an "accident"....seems fair to me.
Remember we are talking about people that really do take our side not one of the Langley pencil pushers or pretend spies.
It is surprising how few of these left wing zealots have any circulating testosterone so we may as well eliminate their estrogen and zero their carbon footprint.
I'd clearly say that is the
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:08pm.
I'd clearly say that is the case, from their current heads or past heads of State which includes Clinton and Obama is quite obvious the left does not like the agencies or military. It is rather well documented Clinton, Hillary and Obama are adverse anything military. Their adversity would carry through to the CIA, FBI, etc. the press is just following the lead of their leaders.
One can clearly see their adversity all the way back to the 60's.
Liberals do not like Agencies or Military*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:19pm.
You may have a point. Ask the Family members of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Cajun I came from that
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:23pm.
Cajun
I came from that generation...in 1968 I was working for the Dunes State park in Northern Indiana and late July into early August the SDS assembled at the park before going to Democrat convention. I met them all, they stood out like sore thumbs. Fate also played into my hands at the actual convention, my mother was delegate. We all went to Chicago for the convention. I got to see up close and personal the mess. Then if that was not enough, I went to Indiana University and the entire Chicago 7 came for a visit. That was the fall of 1969. Some showed up at my dorm room of all places. During their appearance then they staged to demonstrations, one was a simple march and the other was giving Clark Clifford a pie in the face during a speech. I saw the demonstration but not the pie incident.
Over the years I've wracked my brain to remember if Hillary was at the convention or in the Dunes.. I just don't recall if she was or not. She lived in Oak Park Illinois a quick ride by L down town to Chicago.
Nobody was a stronger advocate for military veterans than
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:50pm.
was Hillary Clinton while a senator.
Jer
You cannot take spots off a
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:08pm.
You cannot take spots off a leopard. It is still a leopard. Hillary was a radical and remains one to this day. She crooned to the SDS and Alinsky as much as this man in The White House does, except she lived it in in full life and not from just reading it in a book..
More spots
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:22pm.
Hillary also ordered the military to not show up in uniform at HER White House.
Total BS...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:27pm.
Totally debunked fable. Totally.
Jer
Maybe for "military
Submitted by Zippy on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:56pm.
Maybe for "military veterans". But, not for Active duty.
This is the story, I got way out in San Diego. And never refuted.
Jan. 21, 1993 2nd day Bill and Hill were in the WH. Military uniforms were not allowed in the WH. By order of Hilliary.
They had to go downstairs and change into suit and tie. There is a gym with lockers.
The Marine at the door. Was excluded, only because he was outside.
The first day, they were there. Hillary tried to hand a bag to a Secret Service guy.
Then she said "What the f**k good are you?". That has been proven in print. Numerous times.
To repeat: TOTAL BS
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 5:02pm.
Totally debunked fable.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 5:39pm.
I'd hardly call a bunch of anecdotal evidence a total debunking.
The fact is I know someone who knows someone who had direct experience with the WH during the Clinton years who says not only where the vandalism charges very true but so was (in particular) H. Clinton's hatred of the military.
But that's anecdotal as well.
hydro...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 5:50pm.
more anecdotes.
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:09pm.
Well, if the Clinton White house denied the rumors, it's settled then.
Look, there's enough wiggle room to believe what you want. Unless you where there, there's really no way to know for sure.
Personally, based on what I mentioned in my other post, I don't know if I buy the uniform thing, but I do believe the vandalism charges and I do think that many of the security and military folks who worked the WH during those years had a pretty cold relationship with H. Clinton.
But whatever, I can't prove it one way or the other.
hydro...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:20pm.
What does the vandalism issue have to do with any of this? It occurred. The Bush administration, which said they weren't interested in it, then proceeded to spend hundreds of hours and no telling how much money meticulously documenting every single "W" that was missing and every picture that was crooked. But no doubt there was vandalism. And that is relevant to Hillary and military uniforms exactly how?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:28pm.
My general point was about anecdotal evidence. I was just using the vandalism thing as an example of something I've personally heard about from someone who was supposedly there and that, despite that, I can't be 100% sure if it's true and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone who holds the opposing opinion to change their mind because of it.
I think the uniform thing is pretty much the same thing.
That's all.
Although, from what you say, it seems the vandalism thing isn't really questioned anymore so I suppose that was a bad example to use.
→ I missed that, Jer.
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:28pm.
The GAO may have reported on the keyboards, but can you link to the meticulous documentation from the Bush Administration of which you speak?
IIRC, Bush tried to play down the prank.
My pleasure, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:29pm.
It's an exhaustively detailed 77-page response by the Bush administration which begins at page 83 of the GAO Report which had been requested by Repub congressmen.
Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:40pm.
As I pointed out before, (I think) I'm aware of the GAO report, but I've got a question.
Was Bob Barr President between Clinton and Bush? I'm confused, because you said the White House meticulously documented the vandalism.
You're still offering no proof the WH did any such thing. Unless, of course, President Barr ordered it.
Cool..
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:47pm.
Are you capable of scrolling to p. 83 of the Report, or do I need to come down to TX and hold your hand and do it for you? I will if it will zip up your sarcastic mouth.
Jer
→ Not in public, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:01pm.
My page 3 refers to janitors and transition crew.
But page 2 says,
Further, the counsel (to the president) said that the list was not the result of a comprehensive or systematic investigation into the issue and
should not be considered a complete record of the damage that was found.
But you say it was "meticulous", and conducted by the White House, as though it was their vandetta.
Again, I seem to remember President Bush pooh-pooh-ing the vandalism angle.
Gosh...the mind boggles at the number of pages the WH response
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:13pm.
would have contained had its review been "meticulous".
"We certainly did not instigate an investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO), nor revel at
the prospect of such an inquiry. However, once the GAO agreed to undertake the investigation,
we agreed to cooperate fully. We have done so. And we now believe that, if there is to be a
report, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the facts are accurately and fully reported.
With that goal in mind, and as a matter of comity between the legislative and executive branches,
we provide the GAO with the following comments. We have now provided the GAO with two
rounds of extensive comments on their draft. Our first round of comments were provided on
April 26, 2002. Unfortunately, the GAO’s revised draft, which we received on May 3, failed to
address many of the concerns we had raised. Accordingly, we have now provided a second set
of detailed comments on the May 3rd draft. We now understand that GAO intends to publish a
response to our comments as an appendix to its final report. We are disappointed that we will
not have an opportunity to consider or reply to GAO’s responses to our comments prior to
publication of the final report.
Part I of the comments describes some general concerns about the overall structure, content, and
use of terminology in the draft report. 1 Part II offers more specific comments. And Part III
addresses the GAO’s proposed recommendations. In preparing these comments, we have
consulted with representatives of the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Administration,
the United States Secret Service, and others, on issues involving those entities or their personnel.
We have also identified to the GAO the source of all factual information and statements cited
herein."
And it goes on and on and on.
Jer
→ Who is "We"
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:18pm.
"We certainly did not instigate an investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
Who is "We"
Cool...Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the White House
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:29pm.
Seriously, are you having trouble opening the .pdf document? If you can, the simplest approach is to look to the far left column where the sections are Bookmarked and click on White House Comments.
Jer
→ So, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:33pm.
You're saying the White House cooperated upon request from Bob Barr, via the GAO?
Seems to me, if there is any "meticulous documentation" it was done by the GAO. And I noted in the original observation, that I was aware of the GAO report, but not of any "meticulous documentation" from the White House, as you had claimed.
Cool...Two questions:
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:40pm.
Have you read the entire 77-page response by the WH? How would you describe it if not "meticulous documentation?
Jer
→ One question, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:44pm.
Do you know what a "response" is?
You're the one who used the term. I'm just saying any information from the White House, in the GAO report, was a response to an information request.
And that request originated from Bob Barr, who was not, at that time, in a position to speak for the White House.
Cool...suggestion:
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:46pm.
Truce? I'm tired.
Jer
edit. And hungry.
→ Have a chicken fry
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:52pm.
I'm stuffed.
And I got 4 birdies today, even though I didn't break 80.
That's wonderful, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:21pm.
Now you're just being mean. ;-)
Jer
More hydro...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:08pm.
I rarely use MediaMatters as a source, but it does provide a pretty good overview and chronology of this issue, so you can be your own judge regarding its credulity. Please note though that the rabidly anti-Clinton accusers couldn't even keep their dates straight. And Hillary flat-out denies it.
Jer
Can't be true, Hydro,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:43pm.
Hillary, like a lot of members of the military, was under sniper fire. She has the utmost respect for the military, unless she's engaging in the willing suspension of disbelief.
You are submitting Snopes as a fact website?
Submitted by JDL on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:34pm.
You do know that Snopes is run by flaming liberals right?
Did you read the comments, JDL...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:44pm.
Most are by military personnel, some who detest the Clintons, a few who did exhaustive research of the rumors on their own, and none of whom bought into that stinking pile of BS.
Jer
Story is absolutely true
Submitted by stunned on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:44pm.
Saw Lt. Col. Patterson interviewed years ago and I'm not surprised many people don't know about this nonsense that did occur since the MSM never this story, anyone surprised?
Hillary had tried to do in the spring of 1996. At that time, all military personnel serving in the White House wore business suits, except for the one day a week on which they were required to don their uniforms. There were only two exceptions to this rule: junior officers who served at White House social events wore dress uniforms; and military aides who carried the nuclear "football" containing the top-secret codes the President needed in case of nuclear war wore their service uniforms.
"Hillary tried to change the tradition where military aides wore their uniforms when accompanying the President with the nuclear football," said air force lieutenant colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson, who served as President Clinton's senior military aide. "There were five military aides--from air force, army, navy, marines, and coast guard--and she wanted us to wear business suits when we were carrying the football.
"The directive came down from Hillary through the President's chief of staff, Leon Panetta," Patterson continued. "Secret Service agents opposed her plan, because they wanted us to be easily identifiable by our uniforms in the event that something critical went down. We military aides were not just responsible for the nuclear codes, but also for evacuating the President and accompanying him to safe houses."
"Eventually, Hillary relented. My opinion is she was trying to downplay the military in and around her husband. It's ridiculous for her to claim that the story was the result of some young staffer who, in a lapse of judgment, said something critical to someone in uniform. It was all Hillary's doing from beginning to end."
tired of liberal lies
Interestingly, Zippy claims it was January 21, 1993.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:23pm.
And that the ban was enforced. You [and Patterson] say it wasn't proposed until Clinton's second term and was rejected. There seems to be a credibility problem here, and it's not with the Clintons.
Jeer
update. make that "Jer"
I have been mistaken for
Submitted by Zippy on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:10pm.
I have been mistaken for someone else.
Twice in fact. It took 6yrs and changing consumer fraud laws in CA.
The Riverside County DA inserted bad info in my credit rating. And my wages were garnished.
Mob rules are yelled "THERE HE IS GET EM'". Most times it's a mistake. But, it just takes one person. And you are guilty.
"THE MOB RULES" usually govern the MSM actions. And they make a lot of mistakes.
Good point(s) Zippy
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:29pm.
And as difficult as I'm sure that's been for you, it's not like some Al-Q popped you.
That's not fixable.
Stupid media drones.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Their press made a huge
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:12pm.
Their press made a huge amount of mistakes in the current lawsuit filed recently of the Christian rocker.
We saw that once before in the 90's when the press had to eat literally many huge sums of money for making a person into a terrorist for the bombing at the Olympics. Their trail of mistakes can be seen as far back as early 70's when Westmoreland took on 60 minutes and beat them in a libel suit.
Sure?
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:20pm.
Are you speaking of when Westmoreland sued CBS over a 1982 special report? He dropped that libel suit in February 1985...maybe you are talking about something different.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yep
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:23pm.
I agree with Scheuer about half the time.
This is one of those times.
Michael Scheuer. Thank you for your Service, Sir.
Submitted by Zippy on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 2:44pm.
Michael Scheuer is a Patriot. And the U.S. was fortunate to have his services.
This guy knows "THE SH*T".
Has been in the sh*t. And Survived the sh*t. And he is still taking sh*t.
And Michael is still trying to serve his country. That is a big man.
Sorry. I got side tracked a little. With the troll.
Zippy...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 4:07pm.
You sidetracked yourself by peddling a fable. It would be helpful if you would research the issue and learn the facts rather than reflexively perpetuating falsehoods.
Jer
By the way. Fitzpatrick never
Submitted by Zippy on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 2:52pm.
By the way. Fitzpatrick never proved Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.
She did not fall into the rules as such. Nothing to prove.
Just another office Bi**h. Open the door, Answer the phone, collect the mail, etc.
Nothing secret. Had not left the country on a mission in over 5 yrs. No cover.
And by the way. After you marry an ambassador. You have no cover. No story.
And his investigation is still ongoing. The case was never closed. Still spending money.........I prolly remember this from NB.....somewhere......