Posted by Curt on 11 October, 2006 at 6:18 pm. Be the first to comment!


Larry Elder had Michael Scheuer on his show today and there was many good sound bites to be had. If your not familiar with Michael he served 22 years in the CIA, he served as head of the CIA’s Alec Station whose sole job was to get Osama from 96 to 99. He then served as a Special Advisor to the head of that unit from 2001 to 2004.

Check out a few of the more interesting sound bites.

Larry – He made two points there Mr. Scheuer (referring to Clinton’s interview with Mr. Wallace), first of all “he tried” and secondly he left a “comprehensive anti-terrorism plan for the incoming administration”, would you comment on both those points?

Michael – I think there both incorrect sir. Mr. Clinton spent a lot of money, the CIA tried certainly, we provided him with between 8 and 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden. He took none of them. And never tried once to kill Bin Laden. And that of course is his decision. But for him to say that he had no chances to actually execute the mission is a lie.

On the second point of a comprehensive plan, I was involved very much in the period 2000 until 2004 preparing for a US response, I’m sorry, before 9/11, preparing for a US response and I knew of no comprehensive plan. What we had been asked to do is simply to prepare a target list of possible attack sites in Afghanistan in case we were attacked again.

Later in the broadcast Larry plays the interview clip where Clinton states the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was behind the Cole attack.

Larry – Mr. Scheuer is there a technical reason that the President is therefore telling the truth. In other words he said the CIA and the FBI quote refused to certify end of quote, what exactly does that mean?

– I think he did not hear George Tenet or Louis Freeh say absolutely that it was Al-Qaeda. Now what Judge Freeh would have to do with that I don’t know, thats not a FBI call. But clearly Mr. Tenet’s people within the agency were telling him that it was absolutely Al-Qaeda. Probably the most distressing thing about it is that it’s the President’s job to defend America. And for him to keep blaming his subordinates for not telling him what to do strikes me as just a sign of kind of being a perpetual adolecent.

Larry then asks Michael in his own view which party is more likely to keep us safe from terrorism:

Michael – Without any question the Democrats sir, or the Republicans…I’m sorry.

Larry – That was a freudian slip.

Michael – Ah no it wasn’t, my father would reach out from the grave in a moment. The Democrats have no idea where they’re going, why they want to go. In this whole discussion this fall about foreign policy they have been no where to be seen. They’ll surrender, they’ll make a hash out of it but most of all they wont protect Americans.

I criticize Mr. Bush for alot of things, but at least he was out there pitching. The Democrats are just, they have no conception that there are predators loose in the world.

A caller then asks this:

Caller – My feeling has always been that this “who didn’t kill Osama Bin Laden” is one of the biggest red herrings that the pro-Bush team has ever offered. I don’t think the 9/11 attacks would of been delayed by two minutes if Osama Bin Laden had been killed in 98. Zawahri would have just said go ahead with it. That being the case…

Larry – Wait a minute, lets let Mr. Scheuer respond on this. Suppose Osama Bin Laden had been taken out would 9/11 have happened in your opinion Mr. Scheuer?

Michael – I can’t say yes or no definately, my bet would be that it would not have because Zawahri is not Osama Bin Laden. Zawahri was at odds with people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was the mastermind of 9/11 and more then anything else Al-Qaeda had not jelled into the organization it was several years later in 1998. Bin Laden was still the essential ingredient of that organization. And the bottom line here is we’ll never know one way or another because we didn’t try.

Another great quote is a follow-up answer to that caller:

Michael – I think we’re in a perfect position right now to start thinking about where morality lies. Does an attempt to kill Osama Bin Laden outweigh any qualms about assassination? Would not have a 20 cent bullet into Saddam’s Husseins head 10 years ago been much better then anything we have faced since? Both for us and for the Iraqi’s. Saying that not acting is an answer to anything is just not correct.

Larry – Well, first of all Mr. Scheuer to me it’s just a silly thing to say (referring to the caller) because for crying out loud the planning for 9/11 certainly took place during the Clinton administration. It didn’t just start when Bush walked into office in the 3rd week of January in 01.

Michael – Well yes and that’s exactly right from what we know it was at least 3 years in the planning. But the question is for those people who condemn this President for not acting the question comes down to what did you want him to act against?

He did not have the opportunities that Mr. Clinton had. Did you want the President when he got that PDB memo in August to bomb Cairo? Or Mecca? Or Medina? What did people want him to do? I think this is the missing element of this discussion.

Michael also states later in the interview that Mr. Berger has ensured that the American people will never know the truth about what occurred before 9/11, and what punishment did he get? Revoking his security clearence for a few years.

While His views on the Iraq war are pretty much exactly the opposite of mine, he does admits that he is no expert on that country and the conflict. It’s a worthwhile interview to listen to, 40 minutes long with the commercials cut out. Check it out here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x