gdp's Comments

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Bob Woodward's Obama: Holding office trumps U.S. lives and security

Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:46:25 +0000

How hopelessly backwards have our politics become, that it is a matter of course to ignore the security of the United States and the safety of American citizens to GAIN SUPPORT for your parties reelection bids! In the same vein, I'm not surprised that our current crop of leaders would put off any truly forceful military action against the Islamist camps on the Pakistani border until after another terror attack would force them into a political corner, so their action would avoid 'making waves' without massive popular support. Of course I seem to remember in Marching Towards Hell that you, Dr. Scheuer, stated that the CIA keeps an almanac of the Islamist training camps worldwide, and as I remember you said the number of 'known' camps during your tenure was well above 1,000. It kind of makes you wonder if, even if we did wipe out all those camps in the Pakistani border regions, what overall effect that would even have on Islamist operations aside from a temporary setback while they just moved in other forces? Finally, I caught your interview on Freedom Watch over the weekend. I must say I was taken aback by your response to Col. Shaffer's allegations toward the CIA, primarily about his 'primary intelligence asset'. Though I found it fascinating that you had (for your sins!) followed that individual since the '80s, the most shocking part to me was the Col. Shaffer claimed that person, one of their PRIMARY human assets for Abel Danger, was assisting on spearheading black ops, and had provided them with much 'actionable intel', yet from your apparent longstanding experience with the person you knew him to be a "liar of the first order" who had "never provided a piece of good information about anything". That means one of the primary human intel assets for Col. Shaffer's Abel Danger op was completely useless! Maybe it's just me, but I found that both fascinating and shocking.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Ted Koppel joins the U.S. political elite's ship of fools

Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:43:36 +0000

I cannot say I'm surprised to see yet another former newsman attempting to give their 'expert' analysis on subjects they are only familiar with insofar as their vague recollections from a teleprompter display. I'm even less surprised that he has found himself taking the position of the current Democratic establishment. A group which itself holds a position that seems to differ from the Neo-Conservative position only in that they believe that the Islamist threat, along with every other woe that befalls us, popped out of thin air only when Bush took power. I did have a small chuckle at his assertion that our troop expansion is to somehow 'secure' the Pakistani nuclear arsenal from Afghanistan. As you noted, the main reason that arsenal would be threatened in the first place was the US gov't, as you say, dragooning (I miss that term) the Pakistanis into doing our dirty work against the will of their population. Feel free to correct me, but I remember reading that the president there even ended up suspending elections and declaring martial law to keep his government intact a good while back, while at the same time taking various tongue-lashings from our gov't for 'not helping us enough'. So we are (still) in the absurd position of sending more troops to Afghanistan to resolve a situation created by sending and keeping troops in Afghanistan. Either way, Dr. Scheuer, here's hoping we eventually see news that may warrant an article with a positive outlook on the future instead of those that give me an urge to dig a fallout shelter.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Let us have truth: Hiroshima and George W. Bush

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:51:59 +0000

Totally defeated as a military power? Have you ever looked at the planning they had for Operation Olympic (the mainland invasion plan)? They were going to use the 2nd Marine division as the spearhead force, however by D+5 and on you notice they aren't used in any operations. This is because by then they had roundly assumed that the entire division would be annihilated within 5 days of landing. Remember that the planners believed there were around 650,000 Japanese troops dug in throughout the island at most, when in actuality the figure was over 900,000. This isn't even counting civilian participation, which you could be nearly sure of. If you counted the Japanese "Patriotic Citizen" militia force, than the figure balloons to over 28 'million'. No matter how you much you slice up those numbers or try to game surrender ratios, choosing to drop the bombs instead of taking it to them straight on saved hundreds of thousands on each side. Clinton's idea of 'attacking' an enemy is dropping a couple cruise missiles at some randomly chosen building for the cameras and hightailing it. The idea the GWB would suddenly pop into office and pick up that one issue that had been sidelined for years might seem simple and obvious in hindsight, course everything looks obvious in hindsight. I think I know what you are working at with 9/11, but I'm not gonna make the call on that. Suffice to say that every theory I've heard and seen in that vein is either based on blatant falsehoods, horrible misquoting, pure coincidence, or a mix of the three. And I've even heard the 'best' theories straight from Jones himself.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : NYC Mosque, II: As Ivy Leaguers teach Americans to hate Islam, U.S. Muslim leaders must at last be c

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:24:09 +0000

I particularly like this little bit here : "Now, there is no reason to change U.S. policy simply because Muslims do not like it. If Americans decide current policies in the Muslim world are essential to U.S. security, then they must be kept. But to so decide, Americans first must be able debate the issue on a factual basis..." That right there is one of the main reasons I like Dr. Scheuer's work so much. He can look at the facts of the issue, analyze it, and come to a decision based not on partisanship or some moral equivalence, but on what is most beneficial to the well being of the United States and the American people and to Hell with everyone else. But why is that attitude so rare among those who are 'currently' sworn in to support and defend the Constitution and the Republic? Why do we have and continue to support 'leaders' who in case after case value personal gain and votes over even the lives of American citizens? My best guess they do not see themselves as Americans any more, but as a ruling, noble elite class that is above it all. I suppose kind of like the situation for many nobles in Europe from the middle ages on up past the time of Napoleon, where if their country went south they could just hop over to the next country where a relative was ruling and keep on living the high life.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Al-Qaeda wins no matter who prevails in the NYC mosque debate

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:55:05 +0000

I had never really considered the issue of defeatism in the Muslim world as an issue in the various Islamist attacks. It's one of those things that now that I see it, it should of been a rather obvious factor now, looking at the history of the various conflicts in the region. But then again, that is why I like to follow your work, Dr. Scheuer, because I get a view of these issues from an angle completely outside that 'establishment' left-right trash that seems to color almost everything. Of course a more pressing focus of this piece is our unique ability in this conflict to actually create the mines we step on that destroy any chance of making positive progress. I think I saw you say it first, and it is likely very true, that bin Laden must be truly convinced his mission is blessed if for no other reason than the US keeps making horrible policy decisions, picking truly unwinnable fights, and in general screwing ourselves over in our quest to destroy Al Qaeda. It's as if we are trying to win a fight by punching ourselves more than the other guy can, and the only times we lash out, we hit the referee.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Let us have truth: Hiroshima and George W. Bush

Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:35:21 +0000

It is almost blindingly obvious that dropping those bombs was viewed as necessary by the military commanders and the government at that time. They had just seen the Battle of Okinawa, where despite defeat being plain, and being woefully under-supplied, the Japanese still fought to nearly the last along with mass suicides in the population. They of course assumed given all the facts they had, that any assault on mainland Japan would meet far stiffer resistance with much higher civilian deaths. They had assumed losses nearing a million, with the result of a near total depopulation of Japan. Of course the naysayers these days point towards things that have come out during the last half century from Japan and such showing little things that they can nitpick at, as if assuming that Truman in 1945 would of had full access to all the Japanese archives and documents we have today, and as if assuming that having every other fight with Japan ending in them fighting to the last might not have an impact to how we would look at an assault on their homeland. It is worth remembering, I assume, that there was far more government dissension and far less widespread to-the-death fanaticism (look at the prisoner figures!) in Nazi Germany, yet the battle for Berlin was still one of the bloodiest of the theater. Any honest person would know that that Imperial Japanese would of fought far harder and taken far more casualties along with widespread mass suicides. Remember that before the bombs, they were actively training schoolchildren how to dive under American tanks to detonate explosives among other such things. And no, no way Clinton would of ordered the bombings, unless they might distract from his impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile if Bush was president then, by 1945 we still would of been building schools and clinics on Guadalcanal to win their hearts and minds while invading some country that had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor because they may be sheltering Japanese agents.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Presidential orders to kill Americans will soon be routine

Sat, 7 Aug 2010 14:45:51 +0000

I guess that's what it comes down to. Can we get our 'leaders' to change their bipartisan-supported trash foreign policy and unqualified support of Israel, do will we can up sacrificing more and more rights so we may feel safer while the government ineffectually tries to deal with their home grown/imported Islamic insurgency here at home? Personally, I'm of the belief that they would gladly tear our Constitution to shreds before altering their beloved foreign policy status quo and threaten all that election support and AIPAC money it entails. They would already prefer to engage in no judge no jury outright execution of American citizens rather than admit the reality of the issues, and have cultivated legions of Americans that they can get to agree with their actions and goals. Of course as we have also seen, "Domestic terrorist" is kinda a catch-all term for people on the 'fringe' that disagree with the government on a fundamental level instead of differing on various left-right talking point issues. Ron Paul supporter? Possible terrorist. Think the government has expanded way too far in every sector? Possible terrorist. Pocket Constitution? Possible terrorist. Gadsden flag? Possible terrorist. Visit websites that offer alternative views of current issues? Possible terrorist. Gunowner? Veteran? Possible terrorist. On and on and on. The second one of those Islamists do something big and stupid here, all that stuff is gonna start going into overdrive and any rational discussion on foreign policy would be even more nigh-impossible than it currently is.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : They always choose failure: Wikileaks, education, and Arizona

Sat, 7 Aug 2010 14:25:31 +0000

The amount of willful ignorance that pervades our governing bodies and media pundits continues to fascinate me on a nearly daily basis. On that Wikileaks deal, most sectors of the mainstream media as well as all the usual talking heads seemed to only care about either the illegality of the leak and ways to make that Assange fellow disappear or expressing outrage at the Pakistanis. Credit to Scheuer for focusing on the content of the docs instead of joining the "Send out a hit team to disappear them and let Obama unilaterally shut down Americans' access to their site" crowd. The one place where I might disagree would be your perennial assumption that we could turn Afghanistan around by killing the hell out of everything in sight over there. Now I know one reason COIN can almost never work is the effect of prolongated military occupation and conflict tends to rack up the civilian deaths, and as McChrystal himself said, we have been killing an astounding number of civilians already. Since each one of those helps turn a portion of the local population against us, no surprise we are ending up with more and more local insurgents. Add to that the fact that the Soviet invasion showed they can endure pretty hefty civilian casualties and it seems at this point that to "kill our way out of it" we would have to undertake a campaign that would approach the scale of ethnic cleansing. Now I agree we should of gone in there with serious force and killed the enemy outright instead of playing nation-builder for a decade, but I think our current foreign policy makes us look hypocritical enough without engaging in Soviet style mass slaughter of civilians. But thats just me.

Breitbart.tv : Congressman at Town Hall: 'The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country'

Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:08:41 +0000

What is going on with this stinkin' healthcare debate? Why are the only options either health insurance or tax payers getting soaked? I remember back when my uncle busted his spleen 'round 1982; had no insurance, and worked a crap job with crap pay. So he couldn't afford the surgery or hospital stay at all. So did the tax payer get soaked? No! The stinking hospital sent someone to sit down with him to work out a PAYMENT PLAN that he could handle! Why is this old method barely considered at all in the debate when it is just about the best true free market option? But nope, it always goes right back to "What can the Federal government do to make problem X better?" That helpless attitude that has been eating this country alive for a long time.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : This blasphemy will kill Americans

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:07:15 +0000

We are living in a culture where secularism is not only widely accepted, but also praised, and so called 'artists' putting out the most horrible filth are touted as another victory for 'Freedom of Speech'. But that leads to what I found to be one of the more insightful lines in this piece: "we also must accept that just because our elites have decided to call a thing a “human right” or a “universal right” does not make it so." We as a society are practically brainwashed to think that the Constitutionally protected rights we have not only apply to the whole world, but everyone else in the world secretly desires to have all of our rights so they can start doing exactly what we do. AKA "Inside every Iranian is a Westerner waiting to get drunk, watch reality TV, sleep with anything in sight, have an abortion, dump their religion, etc." I tend to think about it more towards how Mike laid it out in the epilogue for Marching Towards Hell; that Western culture and our concept of natural rights are the product of many centuries of great thinkers, great bloodshed, lessons learned and lost, and very slow painful development. That is not something you can easily just take out of a box and override other societies who themselves developed their own cultures through similar rough trials.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda: Playing Americans for suckers

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:01:13 +0000

Oh no. Ethnic and religious strife in East Africa. Say it ain't so. Now, I have as low an opinion of our 'ruling class' as near anyone, but not even our deluded government and National Security advisors could argue that greater intervention in Somalia (or God-forbid Darfur) would be a good idea? Right? Where do they find these people to argue for this crap anyway? "Dur! Gee guys, I think we can stop all ethnic strife in Africa forever if we just commit a few thousand troops there for a couple years! It will work this time because we are special and different and exempt from all lessons of history!" But these aren't burnt out idealists; these are veteran analysts, advisors, and generals spouting this garbage! Maybe they all suffer from some weird cognitive dissonance or something, and every time they screw up they just keep going on like nothing happened.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Americans and al-Qaeda: Laughing Our Way to the Graveyard

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:46:22 +0000

You say there has been silence from our political leaders. However, it is now clear that such is not the case. Obama and the White House have authorized and, yes, deployed the most dangerous and deadly weapon in the entire Washington D.C. arsenal against Al-Qaeda! They have designated Al-Qaeda as an "Racist organization" and say they "do not regard African life as valuable". I can feel the ferocity of this counter-assault from here. I can only imagine the damage this assault is doing to the leadership structure of Al-Qaeda right now. No doubt their remaining second and third tier leaders are struggling to consolidate and do what little damage control they can in the wake of this deadly attack. Congrats to Obama for showing his true strength and silencing his critics who have accused him of being soft! Meanwhile Al-Qaeda is expanding its influence to those growing populations of dissatisfied Muslims across the globe. How the hell does the US even begin to fight growing Muslim insurgencies in dozens of countries at the same time? Pull back, consolidate, and work through intelligence assets? Ignore the problem and target 'gun-owners, veterans, and militia-groups'? Hand over national parks to drug cartels? Finally, why would one paint an image of Hirohito on a torpedo meant to sink one of Obama's aircraft carriers? Get it? Never mind.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : July 4th, 2010: Ready for more intervention, incoming nukes, and war with Iran?

Wed, 7 Jul 2010 13:53:53 +0000

This is the kind of stuff that boggles my mind, yet nearly every day there is more and more idiocy pouring out of our government. Now we have Obama trying to create a 'civilian expeditionary force' to go over to Afghanistan to help accomplish what we shouldn't of been doing to begin with. Considering the mass of corruption and scandal we have already seen with the contractors and NGOs that have been operating over there, I am loathe to consider what will become of throwing a bunch of under-trained bureaucrats with little knowledge or respect for local culture at the problem. Right now our forces are surging around Kandahar and the south in general to carry out long announced offensives while our troops in the east are facing masses of forces swarming over from Pakistan http://tinyurl.com/2el3rur. Meanwhile the Brits are dumping their own problem in Sangin off onto the Marines proper and redeploying in Helmand. The population at large just about completely hates us now, no thanks to the aggregated affects of years of shifting battlegrounds, martial law, and civilian deaths. The locals are using informants to get US forces to fight their tribal disputes for them, much like anonymous informants here in the US do to knock off drug rivals. We have succeeded in making the country go from supplying almost nothing to over 90% of the worlds heroin in record time. Our leader-targeting strategy has created gangs of armed bandits that just roam around living off the locals. In the middle off all this Obama wants to send in a horde of school builders and 'cultural ambassadors'? DHS incompetence is always fun to see, in a 'gallows humor' type way. Hyping some minuscule increase of forces on the border as 'tackling the problem' seems to be a common trend among government agencies. You can't say they did nothing or don't care now! No doubt they will take complete credit for any progress made by hard-line sheriffs and tough state enforcement while damning their policies at the same time. This all reminds me of some lines from that popular speech by Daniel Hannan last year: "It's not that you are not apologizing. Like everyone else I've long accepted you are pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It's that you are carrying on, willfully, worsening our situation!" "You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it's nonsense!" Oh, and be sure to check out the latest Neo-Con defense policy aggregation site ( http://bigpeace.com/ ). Only been up less than a week and already nearly a dozen articles about why we need to get into a war with Iran.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : On Comments to the Site, Armed Rebellion, Dr. Rand Paul, and Israel-First

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:27:10 +0000

Right on! Thank you! That is exactly what you needed to put out there (again). The issue with the Israel-First lobby, as with most all special interest groups, is that they apparently see America as a toolbox from which they can withdraw whatever devices they need to construct their ideal world. Of course not every lobby can garner the support of three-quarters of the entire Congress on most any issue. Look at the lobbying support (opensecrets.org) for HR 1327 (Iran Sanctions). 14 organizations: two defense contractors, an oil company, two insurance groups (not life insurance I'd hope), the ADL, and the rest were rather clearly Pro-Israel groups (AIPAC, Jewish Cmte, Jewish Council, Jewish Federation, etc). This trend repeats on most other Iran legislation, with a mass of Pro-Israel groups, defense contractors, and some assorted others all pushing it. Oh, and my turkey of a congressman Steny Hoyer too. The United States has more than enough problems to deal with on our own borders and in our own lands to keep us busy for a while. We don't need various special interests trying to throw away American lives and tax dollars on trying to right whatever international wrong that they have taken a personal interest in at the time.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : America's Alliances: Time for a Second Look?

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:56:03 +0000

@UncommonTruth I don't think that Scheuer's belief in Sherman's Total War translates well into a situation as messy as the massive, widespread regional violence in areas such as Rawanda, Darfur, Congo, Uganda etc. In most of those places, you just have a multitude of decentralized groups attacking each other and the populace wholesale. How do you stop that 'Quickly and Completely'? I mean, what can you do? Drop JDAMs on shanty towns? Just move in an MEU and tell them to waste anything carrying a gun or machete? If they don't lose their nerve to keep killing with losses in the millions, do we still go with trying to inflict enough death to demoralize them into laying their arms down? All that would probably do is just unite the whole region pretty quickly against you. Not to mention most of the time as soon as the 'peace-keepers' pack up and go, they just go right back to wholesale slaughter. If Somalia won't cut it, than I would compare it to trying to stop the drug cartels in South/Central America. You snuff out one threat and another pops right back up, with weapons and people pouring in from everywhere. I believe Columbia is finally making some progress, but after 'how' long and 'how' much death? I don't think the people here would have the patience to go through what they did over the woes of another country. If the folks really decide that they can't leave people alone, and insist on righting wrongs across the globe, than at the very least they have to consider whether their planned actions are going to make the situation better or worse. Personally, I'm all for the Star Trek idea of the Prime Directive. Do 'not' interfere with the social/cultural development of other peoples. They have to work out problems on their own if they are ever going to actually improve, and people don't seem to realize societal development isn't something you can dump "Miracle-Grow: Democracy" on and make everything Little America in the span of a presidency. I agree with you on Clinton, of course.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Did you enjoy "Lynch-an-Elderly-Female-Journalist-for-Israel Day"?

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:58:05 +0000

@ UncommonTruth Here, I am actually going to say I agree with you.....to a point. Something that could probably make my point about this better than I could is to just watch Mike's January interview on C-SPAN "No Country Has the Right to Exist" on Youtube. But to summarize, you see how people call in and are obviously in the "Israel wants to steal my children, all terror attacks are really the government" camp. Yet in his responses, Mike is perfectly calm and answers the off-the-wall questions as if they were as legitimate as any other. I would chalk this up to either the professionalism he manages to keep in nearly all his interviews, or the damage caused by a long career dealing with idiotic Federal bureaucrats (with 'sixth-degree black belts' in government gibberish-speak). Either way, even though he might disdain such speech as 'politically correct CYA trash', a simple qualifier that "Well, I don't endorse that view" or something similar would go a long way to clearing up misconceptions. I'd say he has done a pretty decent job at that in the videos I've seen where the '9/11 Truther' types engage him. But otherwise you get an odd mixture of conspiracy wonks, white supremicists, and self-proclaimed Islamists all chiming in to express their support for their view of his stance on Israel. This despite the fact he has said multiple times he supports Israel doing whatever it needs to to defend itself, as long as the US isn't involved. Also, I would chalk up some of his more 'firey' rhetoric to a sense of frustration rather than some kind of jingoism. But all I can do is go off of what I have read and seen; can't read minds. Anyway, everything after your first paragraph I agree with totally.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : In Illinois: A pro-war, anti-1st Amendment Senate campaign

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:52:19 +0000

Well, Mike, I guess Congressman Kirk would be far from the first member of Congress to run an election campaign using majority out-of-state donations by pro-Israel groups and individuals. I can think of at least a couple members of congress who have run with nearly 70% of their finances from out of state pro-Israel groups or private donors (I think Artur Davis ran with over 75%). Of course, nailing down private donors and their motivations is quite difficult and the parties involved know that. For a fun exercise, go ahead and search AIPAC at opensecrets.org, look at the bills they sponsor, notice how almost always the same other groups get involved, look at the congressmen who sponsor the bill, follow the money. Of course, one fun thing I noticed is, since you can't be sure about the masses of unknown small private donations, you'll notice that groups like AIPAC get a LOT done with a comparatively small outlay (Not even in the top 100 for lobbying expenditures). Anyway, it is (still) quite creepy to see someone running for office in the US yet falling over themselves telling the whole world how they are itching to tirelessly serve a foreign power. Also "Chai for Kirk"??? Isn't that some kind of tea-based beverage? Hmm, or a Jewish word for 'live' or 'living'. SO, he wants you to become a Live for Kirk leader! Whoa! Talk about extra-creepy. The man is starting some kind of weird cult! I kid of course, but it is still strange. Aren't there campaign people who get paid to look this stuff up?

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : America's Alliances: Time for a Second Look?

Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:37:12 +0000

I can't really disagree with this. Anyone who has glanced over history or even messed with one of those 4x games should know the dangers of making alliances with anything that doesn't automatically shoot at you. It's a good way to get drawn into a conflict that you want no part of, and a prime way of taking a dispute between two nations and turning it into a massive war. @ UncommonTruth The first word that comes to my mind is 'Somalia'. Look at the overall failure of 'Restore Hope' and 'United Shield' to make any lasting changes. All you can do in these regions is just let them go at it, the situations are far too complicated to just jump in and there are normally no sides to take. At BEST all you can do is occupy the country and take casualties trying to stop the killings, but then as soon as you leave it will just start back up again unless you plan to stay "a hundred years". As the lesson was hard learned back in '93, while hearts may bleed over the killing and suffering in these war-torn countries, as soon as you see American bodies being dragged through the streets all the reality hits home and opinions start shifting fast. @ rc8472 I'm guessing the primary reason for supporting those nations is our common cultural and language link. That and I believe they have a pretty decent record of supporting the US in times of trouble, and seem a pretty low risk to go starting wars for needless (ethnic, religious) reasons.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Did you enjoy "Lynch-an-Elderly-Female-Journalist-for-Israel Day"?

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:43:28 +0000

@UncommonTruth But there 'are' entire groups of Americans who think it is the responsibility of the United States to not only play World Police, but to spread American values. Whether it is the Neo-Conservatives, the progressive Liberals, or various special interest groups of varying influence, each has their own foreign policy agenda. One need look no further for the NeoCon line than places such as Sean Hannity, BigHollywood, or the Weekly Standard. There you find we apparently need to save the Muslims from themselves, spread American values worldwide, support Israel unconditionally, etc. For the Liberals, it is more or less the same deal, but we use aid instead of force to spread influence, intervene more in Africa, and we try to 'moderate' the 'debate' between Israel and everyone around her. Anyway, it is not that Israel is directly acting through (most of) her supporters to encourage aspects of American foreign policy. Rather it is the 'Unconditional Support of Israel' belief that is propagated through many of these organizations who feel they are acting in Israel's best interests, even if they are not. I seriously doubt these folks sit around twirling their mustaches a la Snidely Whiplash thinking about how to exploit America for Israel, they really think they are doing what is right. They really, truly think that Israel is important for spreading democracy and American values through the region. That is unless you count the evangelical Zionists and such who really do have an Israel-First view so they can bring the Apocalypse. Or you can just write off Dr. Scheuer as an anti-Semite nut who is "just tryin to lynch them jo0s". Whatever works for you, man. I personally can't stand that his views on the Israeli-US relationship tend to attract the "Israel wants to steal my soul!" crowd, since it only serves to distract from the real issues and fuel those who would dismiss the whole debate.

Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com : Did you enjoy "Lynch-an-Elderly-Female-Journalist-for-Israel Day"?

Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:41:27 +0000

It is pretty shameful, though not surprising at all, that Thomas was forced out simply for expressing a personal opinion in an interview. While I'll lose no sleep over seeing her finally go, it should raise some alarms that if you simply express a personal opinion on the status or policy of a favored foreign state, not even being a proper Party member can save you. @UncommonTruth It is worth remembering for both sides that, like most states and groups, there is no one single monolithic position that all Israelis or all Jews support on issues. However it is also worth noting that the massive AIPAC lobby did cheer on the war, though avoided holding an official position on it. Just look up the '03 Washington Post article on AIPAC and Iraq, with the Israeli Foreign Minister praising the war, saying that AIPAC promoted involvement in the war, etc. Though a better target for condemnation might be the evangelicals who support the Israelis in hope they build the Third temple to bring about the apocalypse. Talk about creepy stuff right out of a movie. Just from my personal view, it appears like Israel seems to have an interest in keeping the countries in the region destabilized presumably to avoid a coalition of Arab governments forming in a repeat of the '73 war (or '67 war, '48 war etc etc). Of course I could easily be quite wrong. But Mossad does have a pretty extensive history of political operations throughout the region. Either way, like Dr. Scheuer, I agree that Israel can and should do whatever they have to, to ensure their survival. But the US has no strategic interest in the country, like many other countries, worth our commitment of resources or a policy of automatic war to protect it.