Monday, November 22, 2004

CIA Madness

Michael Scheuer looks less and less credible with everything you read about him. Steve Hayes has the goods on Scheuer's unsustainable position regarding the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Apparently Scheuer did research on this connection and came up with "nothing." Which contradicts everything else we seem to know about Saddam and bin Laden's relationship. (Spare me the email; all available evidence says that the two of them had a relationship; the question is whether or not it was operative.)

Then Matt Continetti has a report on Scheuer's feud with Richard Clarke. Scheuer does not come off looking terribly good.

I'm just digging into Scheuer's books, but I'm struck by one passage from the acknowledgments in Through Our Enemies' Eyes:

At the day's end, I would like to thank those who granted my request and those who opposed publication. Indeed, the latter steeled me to press the issue to a conclusion and not yield to men who, in Mark Helprin's 1998 words, "knowing very little or next to nothing, take pride in telling everyone else what to do."

I understand--and applaud--holding grudges. But this doesn't sound like someone with much respect for opposing judgments. Or someone who's much of a team player.

1 comment:

Dean Barnett said...

Watching Scheuer yesterday morning one thought constantly recurred - what a schmuck! And this guy was apparently in a position of some authority.

Until yesterday I had considered the CIA something of a rogue agency. But the term rogue agency connotes a certain lethality and swagger. But this Osama idolizer wass neither lethal nor swaggerish - just a pathetic dumb schmuck. And he was a big banana! As Tom Daschle used to say, I'm saddened.

Goss has his work cut out for him, that's for sure.