Here’s the money shot:
But I can’t find anything on the front page of Populist.Press, where it’s hosted:
As they say, you never want to meet your heroes. There’s an academic I greatly respect, but as I listened to his interviews in the Trump era, I realized that his current events analysis was just like any other Boomer’s – he watched FOX News, then took all the various political platitudes more or less seriously, and in the “horse race” sense of politics, thought Trump was going to “come through” any day now, perhaps in a second term. In this analysis, Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner were merely “bad influences” – the pair were “obviously liberals” and giving Trump “bad advice.” If only Trump would have listened to other, more “based” people, he would be able to do the right thing.
In this analysis, Donald Trump, the man, is the same as Donald Trump, the TV character. When Trump says something on TV, he “means what he says” and his “instincts” are good, his heart is in the right place. But he is swayed in the wrong direction by “bad advisors.”
This is the analysis of someone who thinks of Donald Trump as a “CEO” as opposed to “an actor.” It is the same in kind as the people who said, “Trump knows construction, so he will know how to build the wall.”
When Trump started his TV show The Apprentice … in 2004 … the Wall Street Journal did a feature on Trump. The consensus was that Trump’s main asset was his brand, that Trump had no management role in any of “his” hotels – most simply licensed the name – and the Trump Organization was run by a professional management team.
Trump was the showman, the front man. Trump isn’t a “businessman” – he’s an actor. His role as President was little more than his role on the Apprentice. Trump did not come up with policy, then delegate the implementation of that policy to his underlings. Trump managed his public image – he “watched the shows” then would Tweet about his coverage.
Does anyone believe – at all, for a single second – that Donald Trump, in his entire life, during his entire term in office, read more than a paragraph or two about “policy” – domestic or foreign?
It really shows how emotional media, especially Television, makes people. The same people who thought that Obama was an empty suit all of a sudden believe that Donald Trump is a commanding executive. The same people who thought George W. Bush was mentally retarded believed Obama wrote the speeches he read off of the teleprompter.
All of this is based on their emotional reaction to Television appearances by public figures they have never met.
In any case, what happened to CIA officer Michael Scheuer?
“Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorism Center, known as “Alec Station”) from 1996 to 1999.”
We can see his rise and fall documented in the Daily Beast.
In 2009, at the opening of the Obama administration, he was still considered an “expert.” (But note closely the difference between the original publication date and the updated date.)
Is Osama bin Laden still alive? Michael Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden tracking unit, certainly thinks so. On The Early Show Saturday, Scheuer said he believes he’s not only alive and safe, but “perfectly well in control” of his organization.
Updated Apr. 25, 2017 1:19PM ET
Published Sep. 12, 2009 9:09AM ET
By 2014, the notorious neo-con Zionist Jew David Frum, George W. Bush’s speechwriter, is sounding the alarm. Michael Scheuer has actually always been “strongly tinged with anti-Semitism.”
It’s been a long way down for the former CIA hand and over-the-top Iraq War critic—right down to endorsing the assassinations of Barack Obama and David Cameron.
Updated Apr. 14, 2017 1:06PM ET
Published Jan. 03, 2014 5:45AM ET
Frum explains why he is upset:
The longer he remained in the public eye, the more he emphasized one particular theme in the book that made him famous: that it was Israel and the Jews who were to blame for America’s difficulties in the Islamic world. By 2008, Scheuer was arguing that “Israel Firsters” started the Iraq War.
In 2009, Scheuer was sacked by the think tank at which he then worked for denouncing President Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, damning Emanuel as “a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israel’s military.” (Emanuel in fact worked as a civilian volunteer in Israel during the Gulf War ) The language became progressively more bold and accusatory. The relationship with Israel cost America “blood and lives.” Israel “owns Congress.”
Scheuer went all in on the Trump train:
He Hunted Bin Laden for CIA. Now He Wants Americans Dead.
Michael Scheuer used to hunt Osama bin Laden, whom he now says he admires. Now his quarry is Donald Trump’s enemies, whom he equates with terrorists.
Sr. National Security Correspondent
Updated Sep. 15, 2020 12:34PM ET / Published Sep. 15, 2020 4:30AM ET
For months, Michael Scheuer has been trotting out Air Force Lt. Col. Thomas McInerney, who in 2004:
McInerney was a staunch advocate for the Iraq War. In 2002, he said a military campaign against Iraq, would be “shorter” than the 42 days it took to complete the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and further, “It is going to be absolutely awesome, and that’s why this war, if we do it properly, will go very quick, and we’ll have less civilian casualties than we did last time.”
In 2004, he claimed without evidence that with the aid of a Russian Special Forces team with GRU, Saddam had transported weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to Syria and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for safekeeping. Although McInerney said they had been moved to three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, by Charles A. Duelfer, special adviser on Iraqi weapons to the C.I.A., concluded that any stockpiles had been destroyed long before the war and that transfers to Syria were “unlikely.”
In 2006, McInerney advocated for regime change via military action against Iran …
During the Bush administration, McInerney’s television appearances were coordinated with the Pentagon:
To be blunt, McInerney’s appearances with Michael Scheuer have a similar feel to a Joe Biden press conference – the old man doesn’t seem “all there” exactly.
But now both Michael Scheuer and Thomas McInerney are endorsing a “whistleblower” who gave this “deposition” to Trump’s former attorney Lin Wood, one of the main lawyers involved in Trump’s lawsuits over the elections.
The document – a PDF – is essentially a fetish item. It’s dressed up to look like legal paperwork, even thought it is not. It comes with a “certification” by … the transcriptionist, who “certifies” that this transcript is a “true and accurate record of electronically recorded proceedings” …
… which of course has zero significance of any kind. Someone hired this woman to transcribe an audio interview of someone using the assumed name “Ryan Dark White” by an unnamed interviewer.
But it looks “official” – like a court transcript. Although it is nothing but a narrative given by an anonymous person to another anonymous person.
Well, what is in the interview?
“Ryan Dark White” claims to be a former “intelligence” agent with knowledge of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – a Trump appointee, let’s not forgot – along with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, all being involved in a complex blackmail scheme.
Really – it’s the QAnon narrative, more or less. Here’s a fun tidbit about Vice President Mike Pence:
The vice president has had homosexual relations in the past — it’s not a problem. Many of them were adults. This is something he had done throughout his time in the Congress. When he became governor he had thought that he was free to explore them more.
There were two specifically that they had recorded. One gentleman roughly 20 years his junior. They had a fairly steady relationship. There was one about half his age that was much more sporadic, because it was more dangerous, harder to get time alone. This person would introduce others, bring people with him. He’d have people waiting when he showed up.
And it was that second one that introduced younger and younger people, “This is whomever, he’s 17” and he’s really 15, “This is whomever, he’s 15” and he’s really 13. And Rod and Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts — a lot of the younger people involved, the ones that were brought as favors, were supplied by Jeffrey Epstein’s channels, through his channels, his people.
It covers every “conspiracy” of the Trump era: Wikileaks, Seth Rich, the “murder” of Chief Justice Scalia.
Devin Nunes makes an appearance, as a good guy, stymied by unnamed “assistants.”
This may be a clue as to why this propaganda was created, because Devin Nunes was a key figure blocking the “Russiagate” investigation.
Although Nunes had characterized his intelligence sources as whistle-blowers whose identities he had to protect, The New York Times reported that they were actually White House officials Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis, while The Washington Post reported that along with Cohen-Watnick and Ellis, a third man, National Security Council lawyer John Eisenberg, was involved.
Both McInerney and Scheuer report on this piece of writing as if it is serious and accurate to some degree.
McInerney could very well simply be too old to know what is going on. But Scheuer seems to be in control of his faculties. At no point does Scheuer make any critical analysis of this narrative.
Does Scheuer really take this piece of writing seriously, even though if, in the performance of his duties at the CIA, he would never, ever take this as anything more than black propaganda – and not black propaganda meant to be believed by serious players, but instead by outsiders and the public?
Even Democrats admitted that the “Steele Dossier” was a political hack job, laundered through British intelligence. This piece is even less credible than the Steele Dossier. Far less credibly. It’s Alex Jones level.
One could see McInerney pipelining nonsense from characters like Cohen-Watnik and Michael Ellis. But Scheuer is known for his public critiques of Israeli influence. In 2004, McInerney and Scheuer were on opposite sides in their analysis of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. McInerney was a neo-con’s neo-con, Scheuer represented the opposite in his book Imperial Hubris.
The only thing I can figure is that Michael Scheuer has some serious skin in the game.
Because without our new Director of Homeland Security Avril Haines, Michael Scheuer – and his wife – would be in a tough spot.
It’s a mystery.
Am I being misled by a simple Faces vs. Heels performance? Or is there a set of complex, but ultimately understandable, agendas at work here?
Even worse – what if Michael Scheuer really does take all this at face value?
What if Michael Scheuer cannot recognize simplistic propaganda when he sees it?
Is that why he never caught Osama Bin Laden?
Were they really trying to get false confessions because they didn’t know what else to do?
I’m reminded of when the CIA started dosing each other with LSD and throwing each other out of windows.
My god – these people really are just crazy. And they have nukes.
We need, at minimum, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.