What do you guys see in Michael Scheuer?

[Depressed Liberator]

I saw him on Fox News some minutes ago, and he sounds like any other neoconservative Fox News invites to discuss some aspect of foreign policy. What's up with that?

[JoshLowry]

Quite simply, there is no moral dimension to our Afghan War other than to protect the United States and the American people. That moral obligation was ignored by Bush and is detested by Obama, being Harvard educated and the good student of Rev. Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers. Those who believe we should, in Afghanistan, be creating a democracy, rebuilding the economy, providing women's rights, and protecting human rights are, I am sure, good people in their own way and minds. But they are, to a monstrous extent, selfish, unrealistic, and patently unconcerned with America's security. If they really want to ensure that all of the things just listed come to pass, they ought to join an NGO, become a religious missionary, or join the Afghan army. Such people are at all times entitled to waste their lives in any manner they choose.

They are not ever, however, entitled to spend the lives of America's soldier-children in anything other than America's defense. No U.S. soldier or Marine should ever be called on to be maimed or killed to make sure Mrs. Muhammad can vote or little Ibrahim can go to a secular school; they should be called on to make such sacrifices only in an effort to decisively defeat America's enemies on the battlefield or to defend its borders.

In other words, if Mrs. Clinton wants to install women's rights in Afghanistan; and if Senator McCain wants to become involved in the civil war in Darfur; and if most members of the Congress want to do everything possible to defend Israel, let them all resign their official positions and go and take up their "sacred" causes as private citizens following their personal beliefs. They would all be likely to get their butts shot off, and America would be no poorer for their loss. Indeed, all Americans would be better off because we would stop intervening in other peoples' wars and we would preserve the lives of our soldier-children for the few occasions where the application of overwhelming military power is necessary to defend America. Our moral obligation in Afghanistan is framed solely by the requirement laid down by the Founders: America first.

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/obamas-afghan-dilemma-go-big-o.php#1352882 (http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/obamas-afghan-dilemma-go-big-o.php#1352882)

[amy31416]

Have a read through his blog.

http://non-intervention.com/

[Depressed Liberator]

Does he put on another altered face when he goes on Fox News then? Because I could honestly have not figured he was for non intervention based on media appearances he has made that I have seen.

[amy31416]

Does he put on another altered face when he goes on Fox News then? Because I could honestly have not figured he was for non intervention based on media appearances he has made that I have seen.

Have a link to a video? He does sometimes come off as harsh, but without knowing what he said I can't comment any further.

ETA: Come to think of it, I do recall a segment on Beck where Scheuer made some lamebrain offhand comment about the US needing to get hit again by a terrorist attack before we'd shape up on security. I considered that a pretty irresponsible comment, even if it is semi-true. I say "semi-true" because if 9/11 didn't shape them up, for real, nothing will. Not to mention that it implies support for awful stuff like the scanners, the Patriot Act, etc.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well he maintains that we did indeed create the terrorists...but since we created them we should pull out all the stops to defeat them. I think hes' saying "S*** or get off the pot" so to speak and stop playin around with our troops. tones (I love the guy)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Matter of fact...I'm going to AMAZON right now and buy his book. I've been meaning to do so. TONES

[TroySmith]

Matter of fact...I'm going to AMAZON right now and buy his book. I've been meaning to do so. TONES

Imperial Hubris is great. Mr. Scheuer is also kind enough to respond to emails.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Troy you are right..he is a very kind man. He has responded to mine before..i love the guy. tones

[emazur]

PROS:
- supports Ron Paul's position that we are creating the terrorists
- supports troop withdrawal

CONS:
- uses very hawkish language saying that the war on terrorism could be won if we did the the right kind of aggression (but has said b/c the president and/or military has not been doing it right, they never will so we should just bring back the troops)

[Old Ducker]

Washington and Israel: Arm-in-arm for endless war with Islam
By | Published: March 18, 2010
In the past two days, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton rushed to the media to say U.S.-Israel ties are a “close, unshakable bond” and to pledge their “absolute commitment to Israel’s security.”

Vice President Biden would have said the same, but he is still so shamed by the meal of humiliation he disgracefully lapped up at Netanyahu’s table that he is hiding under the bed.

This mighty U.S.-Israel “crisis” looks ready to blow over quicker than it started. Obama and Clinton have accepted that Netanyahu and AIPAC are their bosses and the Muslim world will note that carefully. Obama’s eager acceptance of Israel’s humiliating dressing-down will shock always honor-minded Muslims, reinforce their perception that Israel runs U.S. foreign policy, and convince the Muslim world — moderate and militant — that the “new opening” Obama declared in Cairo was simply a “new opening” meant to again delude Muslims into thinking change will occur in U.S. policy in the Middle East. The icing on the cake for our Islamist enemies will appear when Israel successfully goads the Palestinians into a third Intifada — and that seems not too far off — and Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Republican leaders immediately announce more U.S. taxpayer funds for “poor little Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East” and AIPAC-owned members of Congress sign the traditional blank check.

If nothing else this little episode shows Americans the problem in
Israel-U.S. relations is not Israel, but the greedy, cowardly, and disloyal Americans in Congress who keep supporting Israel with large sums of money and — in Iraq — the blood of our kids. It long has been obvious that AIPAC is loaded with U.S. citizens who care for America only because it is a convenient milk cow they can keep draining on Israel’s behalf. These Israel-First “warriors,” of course, push for war with Muslims from here in North America where their wealth and kids are safe from the impact of their war-mongering, unless of course they encourage their children to follow the Rahm-Emanuel-model of publicly emphasizing disloyalty to America by serving with Israel’s military.

more here (http://non-intervention.com/227/washington-and-israel-arm-in-arm-for-endless-war-with-islam/)

[AmericaFyeah92]

He's very good on foreign policy, but he happens to be a Lincoln-worshipper which can be distracting when it spills into his work (he recently compared the Israeli lobby to Northern "Copperheads," and sounded very proud of how Lincoln had smashed dissenting Northerners)