Scheuer is simply bemoaning his loss of influence and just like Cheney hoping for an attack to restore the standing of the usual fear/war-mongers. The fake concern for the country actually masks how sad these saboteurs are that only fake-news now seeks them out for interviews and propaganda spreading. Spencer pls hold the sympathy for those who really deserve it, not this asshole.

I am a simple man. While I am aware of nuance, I try to view the world through a pair of Occam’s spectacles. I don’t think I had any difficulty understanding what this man said, and no amount of frantic backtracking will result in any forgiveness for his most foul transgression.

That said:

You can take actions to PREVENT attacks.

You can take actions to AVERT attacks.

But what would be much more effective would be to see if there were actions you could take that would ELIMINATE attacks. That is, just a little tiny bit of root cause analysis, something still frighteningly taboo in our discourse.

Our economic and political interference, our support for the worst authoritarian kleptocrats, our massively one-sided Israel policy not to mention our armed forces killing people and occupying territory in at least four Islamic nations makes us a target. Now we SHOULD be having a reasonable dialog about what policy better serves American interests. This interventionist, militaristic, even imperial approach to the region, or something less activist, more benign and constructive? So far, we haven’t even had a conversation to define the latter course, let alone given it a try.

We know how to treat a disease, that it requires a great deal more than dealing with the symptoms. Without some consideration of a different policy, the problem of defending American interests from asymmetric attacks is tremendously compounded…

mikey

So, this is the guy charged with rebutting all the reports Osama had died? Or the guy responsible for getting the Government to be afraid of Usama in the first place?
Bonus conspiracy theory: It’s ‘USama’ when he’s an asset and ‘Osama’ when he’s not…

OOOh! 1 minute 20 seconds in.

I love Paul Krugman, and I have lots of reasons to dislike Mike Scheuer, but

A) is there a difference between what Paul Krugman said a few years ago about the Fed and the housing bubble and what Mike Scheuer said on Glenn Beck?

B) is there a difference in how we treat the two incidents?

http://www.businessinsider.com…..ble-2009-6

In a word, yes.

Big, big difference.
For one thing, all of those cites are from periods before the deep economic nose-dive caused by 9/11/09.
Same thing, there was nothing close to a bubble at the time.
The only reference Krugman makes to a bubble is followed by qualifiers:

That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions.

He is talking about more housing starts leading a recovery. Not the same thing as advocating a bubble, or continuing to cheerlead for buying a house at any price in the midst of a bubble.
Scheuer says, in nearlly so many words, “we need to have a bin Laden attack with huge loss of life to save us from our politicians.”

NOT the SAME THING. Not the same thing at all.
There you go.
Part 2 of your question is thus rendered moot.

Spencer, I read your linked post and Scheuer’s comments.

I have to agree with other commenters that his explanation is senseless, because the reaction to the other two attacks didn’t result in what he seems to think is necessary.
He actually says our interventionism around the world is the REASON there would be another attack.
So what’s with the line about responding with sufficient “violence?” Obviously that’s going to be heard as meaning “go to war with” somebody by most people.
And I have to agree- if he doesn’t know that Beck is absolutely going to make that interpretation and quote him to support it, he has no business anhywhere near Beck’s show.

Besides, I disagree with his point that we are still unsafe – we haven’t done enough, but since Obama’s election, al Qaeda is getting less traction with his America-is-warring-with-Islam. This may not last, and it’s surely not enough, but it’s a step better than it was under the boy-prince.

Scheuer is simply bemoaning his loss of influence

How long’s it been since Scheuer had influence? What, like ten years now? And I’m not counting his work for r0n p4v1 ’o8.

Seriously though, is Scheuer a drunk? Or just unmedicated Bipolar Type II?

Spencer, whoever this person used to be to you, you should give it up because he has become deranged. Who will buy the books of a terrorism expert who wishes an attack on the United States for political reasons? Who could possibly respect such a person?

Not sure what Scheuer is up to with these radical statements. This guy used to be the head of the Bin Laden unit. This is the first time I have heard him go this far…has he flipped his lid?

Scheuer’s interview with Mayer is worth listening to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_oaTIH8g

Why they hate us/
“that’s got nothing to do with why they hate us…it has everything to do with what we do”

Scheuer ” I hope Israel flourishes but I don’t think it’s worth an American life or an American dollar”

I realize that I am late to this but I am going to keep it short and sweet.

In the comments section of your post on the Washington Independent Scheuer pretty much confirmed that he is hoping for another attack because he says the “elites” whatever in the hell that means, aren’t taking the threat seriously. He goes on to say that he thinks God might protect us but he wouldn’t count on it. And what it really boils down to is the end game. He wants more attention payed to terrorism and for it to be taken seriously. He doesn’t advocate writing letters to your Congressman or protesting or holding up signs. No he says he ONLY way we will take it seriously is if we get hit again. Thats not just a prediction that it might happen in the future or that its likely, its also what satisfies his endgame. So if he wants terrorism taken seriously and the only way it will be taken seriously in his estimation is another attack then you do the math.

One more thing, I noticed you threw Richard Clarke’s quote out there in your response post to what Scheuer’s comments at the WI. Here is the major difference. Richard Clarke was trying to spur the administration he worked for into action to prevent the disaster that he saw coming. Scheuer claims there is nothing we can do to get the “elites” to prevent another attack. Funny that he never said that when Bush was in office as far as I know even though he tries to make it seem like his criticism is bipartisan. Still saying we have a chance to prevent something is pretty much the exact opposite of saying we have NO chance of preventing it other than God intervening.

Help us OBL– you’re our only hope.

ha! good one

This is a great argument for Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer to defend themselves against accusations of treason. By begging Osama Bin Laden to launch a devastating attack for the good of the US, we can be sure he won’t do it. Beck and Scheuer were only helping prevent an attack with their apparently treasonous discussion. I can’t believe I didn’t see this before.

This is excellent news for Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer!

People should see John Stewart’s take on Scheuer on the Daily Show. Don’t know that an embed would work here, so here is the link http://www.comedycentral.com.