CIA Expert Who Criticized Bush, Clinton Critiques Obama - Ignored By Media


Nothing in American politics is quite so intriguing as the Central Intelligence Agency. There is a certain mystique surrounding this agency, almost wholly because it has proven to be quite good at keeping secrets.

Thus, whenever the actions of the CIA are widely reported in the media, the story typically becomes a fixation for many news outlets - and any former agent who is able to shed light on these actions are usually well-received. But even here, the media has limits.

Take Michael Scheuer, for example. He began as an outspoken critic of President Clinton’s leadership during the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden. Later, Scheuer became a very vocal critic of the Iraq war, and of President Bush’s foreign policy also broadcast throughout the mainstream media. For a media that claim to love bipartisanship, one might think that Scheuer would be on the verge of permanent punditry.

But while Scheuer is an equal-opportunity critic of missteps by Democratic and Republican administrations, the broadcast news media seem to draw the line at allowing him on air to find fault with President Obama.

Scheuer wrote a column in Sunday’s Washington Post, daring to claim that the president’s actions in publishing the so-called CIA torture memos were morally reprehensible:

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?

This article, which Scheuer discussed on this morning’s Fox and Friends, is not devoid of criticism of President Bush’s policies. Chris Matthews, ever the highly-informed Obama acolyte, ignored this fact to call Scheuer an “...ideologue, a hard-right neocon.” In fact, the column leads off with the idea that:

It will help them recognize this episode of political theater as another major step in the bipartisan dismantling of America's defenses based on the requirements of presidential ideology. George W. Bush's democracy-spreading philosophy yielded the invasion of Iraq and set the United States at war with much of the Muslim world. Bush's worldview thereby produced an enemy that quickly outpaced the limited but proven threat-containing capacities of the major U.S. counterterrorism programs -- rendition, interrogation and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks.

And lest there be any doubt, NewsBusters has noted several media incidents involving Scheuer.

Where, then, is this vaunted ex-CIA official on the major media tour? The simple answer is, he isn’t. Despite knowing vast amounts of information about terrorism, al-Qaeda, enhanced interrogation techniques, the circumstances surrounding these interrogations, to whom they were applied, and the history of CIA interaction with al-Qaeda since the Clinton administration, Scheuer is nowhere to be found.

For a CIA operative so easy to find, the media are having unsurprising difficulty locating him.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I will go one step further...

By saying that the whole Obama administration is morally reprehensible.

We are so going to be attacked again.  It is not a matter of if, but when.

I sincerely hope you're

I sincerely hope you're wrong.  I think he's making us less safe, but it is my fondest wish that innocent people will not die for it.

Don't misunderstand me

I definitely don't want it, but Obama's actions/inactions are making it so much more possible.  His arrogance eclipses both Clinton and Bush.  I think I would rather have Clinton back in office then this narcissist.

Sadly

It is always the innocent people that pay the price.  And there is no one president that has had quite the blend of arrogance and ignorance than Hussein.

Just the fact that Hussein not only lacks military experience but actually disdains the military and the CIA - the same people that have kept us all safe for these last few years - makes him the most dangerous man in the world.  Sort of Clinton times two.

Then he uses Chicago-style street tactics to parlay with the world's bad guys.  (Deity of your choice) help us all.

Sympathy for CIA?

I'm kind of torn on sympathy for the CIA. The operative wing that does the real work are the ones that are more put at risk by the Bamster's vacillation and appeasement. They deserve our protection.

On the other hand, the analyst/civil servant/desk jockey wing, like Plame's department, worked very hard at leaking like seives, and getting the Bamster elected and Republicans weakened at every opportunity, even if their actions meant a setback in the war on terror. I'd like to see them all fired or in Congressional hearings.

Slick,

You're right, and the bad thing is, the field operatives will now spend time looking over their shoulders, wondering who at Langley is watching, instead of doing all they can do out in the field to keep the US safe.  They will know that now, no one has their back.  But, the civil servants will be giddy, because maybe next time, they can be hand-picked to appear at an Obama rally in the lobby. 

Same thing with the military, who's watching, who wants to climb the promotion ladder over the bodies of the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen actually out there at the sharp end of the spear?  

And, I hope the lawyers working in this administration remember, they will be out of power some day, and their actions could also be examined by some one with a political agenda. 

Hope not

We are so going to be attacked again.

I think that is wrong and here is why. Our enemies see Obama as a weak willed p****, they know he will probably do nothing if they attack others in the world so they will do just that. China, Russia and others will expand their borders, al Quaida will spread it's horror into more countries, all knowing the worst Obama will do is go to the UN.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Idiot

That idiot Matthews stated that Bush put the U.S. at war with Much of the Muslim world. We invaded a lawless terrorist stated in Afghanistan, and a Prison State run by a tyrant in Iraq. 2 countries . . . and that inflamed the Muslim world? Screw them. The Muslim world doesn't deserve to exist with that mindset.

ab

Well Mike - that's standard operating proceedure for the MSM

When Carter and Mandela condemned Clinton's actions in Kosovo, the media had no interest in their view.

When Clinton came out in summer of 2003, and defended Bush on the "16 words" and the Wilson/Plame scandal, and he supported Bush on the view that WMD's were there and that we should all pull together to bring a democracy to Iraq - the media was absent.

If a Republican critizes a Republican administration, everyone in the MSM wants to quote them, or have em on the show. When a Democrat critizes a Democrat administration, they have no voice to be found.

From 1997 to the end of 2000 - just after Clinton said "never again" - and millions of humans were being slaughtered again (DR Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Angola, and Liberia) and millions more were becoming infected with and dying from HIV/Aids (and Clinton turned his back on the whole affair) the MSM was nowhere to be found.

Certain legacies are more important than the lives and welfare of millions of human beings.

It just is..

(;~/ gary

Assumptions

Whacko liberals think that America is protected by our reputation, and that other countries refrain from attacking us out of respect for our morally virtuous liberal values. Therefore, the best way to preserve our security is to promote liberalism. Enemies won't attack us, they imagine, because we're such paragons of moral virtue. Naturally, they interpret our moral strength as the philosophy of the ACLU.

  • It isn't naivete. It's because they know they can get away with it. They're cheaply exploiting the moment, while the spin is in, and they know that they won't be called on it.
  • Let's face it, our military has succeeded too well. They've protected us to the point that we've forgotten we need protection. Without any responsibility to support that defense, whacko liberals (and ambitious liberals like Obama) feel free to assert their moral superiority.

The cheapest but quickest way to a feeling of moral superiority is to throw out moral accusations against opponents. See Obama now.

More Important Things At Stake

Never mind that anybody with a clue about defense or intelligence has come out against the release of the memos and photos, there was a more important issue at stake.

Why weren't the memos/photos released a few weeks earlier, or a few weeks later?

Let's see . . . what else was in the news cycle that week?

Could it be that the TEA parties were getting too much traction in the media, requiring a bigger jucier issue to push them into media obscurity?

Looks like it worked.

Scheuer brought this on himslef...

Michael Scheuer spent too much time blasting everyone from his "if they had only listened to me" perch.  I have no sympathies for him.  

He came into the CIA after the purges of the Church commission.  He eagerly held the door for those who were tossed out then.  

Jack

"If at age 20 you are a conservative then you have no heart.  If at age 30 you are a liberal then you have no brains."   Sir Winston Churchill

RE:

why would a foreign entity attack a country like the US when they quite possibly already own it? why do that when you already have a mole in the highest office in the land?

Schuer was a great critic of Bush and he's a patriot but he is documented as saying that Bush's rendition policies were right ones and kept America safe. He didn't outsource interrogations to other countries which are far more brutal. Also, previous admins rendition policies only focused on senior alqueda and not rank and file. Bush's did focus on rank and file and he believes that b/c we were able to hold those rank and file here we kept safe.

Mr.L

Mr.L's Tavern

http://mrltavern.podomatic.com