Scott Horton Interviews Michael Scheuer

Scott Horton, November 11, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit and author of Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq, discusses the credibility of claims that al Qaeda is planning an attack bigger than 9/11, the logic behind suicide terrorism, why a quick withdrawal from Iraq is unlikely, how U.S. security agencies are hamstrung by porous borders and ports, the role of Nigerian oil in future U.S. intervention Somalia and why al Qaeda wanted Obama to win the presidency.

MP3 here. (39:55)

Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and the author of Through Our Enemies Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and The Future of America, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq and Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror.

18 Responses to “Michael Scheuer”

  1. The real question in this interview is whether Scott Horton is a gov’t. agent, consciously or unconsciously. This talk about “terrorists” is nothing but hyping the establishment’s line, which justifies the police state being built here and foreign intervention in central Asia which is about controlling the oil fields there. Many of the “terrorists” that “attacked” us on 9/11 were trained at U.S. military bases (Pensacola Naval Air Station, Monterey Defense Language school) and were let in by immigration beforehand because “they were working with the CIA”. The 9/11 crime scene was disturbed and the official 9/11 report was a cover-up: why did NORAD stand down, why was no one fired? One can go on and on, but for more devasting info check out infowars.com, Webster Tarpley, David Ray Griffin. When can only wonder how an otherwise intelligent person like Scott continues this charade about “terrorism”, when it’s clearly a false-flag operation to further the establishment’s above mentioned agenda.

  2. “The real question in this interview is whether Scott Horton is a gov’t. agent, consciously or unconsciously”

    wat?

    Maybe Scott Horton is a Reptilian Jesuit Mossad CIA Quadruple Agent? Just like Alex Jones the Christian Zionist RSICC Jesuit Knight of Malta.

    Let me know how your conspiracy plays out.

  3. “Why the US is losing the War on Terror”?

    Because the WOT is a diversion that the money masters are using to bankrupt the US economy and form a world government… If you haven’t noticed, the majority of government expenditures are on defense, foreign wars and foreign aide to puppet regimes who acquiesce to American foreign policy and interventionism. The imbalance between this and domestic spending is glaring but they keep banging on the terror and war drums to keep the populace asleep to the reality of the situation. By the time most wake up national sovereignty will be a fading memory.

  4. The US empire is the ‘World Government.’ It’s what’s going bankrupt now, due in part to the terror war as you say. But who’s going to pay/supply the troops for a world state after this? Who even then would have the ability to deny American independence as we have done to them? Germany?

  5. “Frank” raises some important issues. It is not a question of “conspiracy” as non-thinkers like “Chris” like to dismiss all uncomfortable questions. It doesn’t really matter if Mr Horton or anybody else appearing on the program is a “government agent”. Can I suggest that what is lacking in the program are guests who are well-informed but do not toe the party line, especially on questions such as al qaeda or the 9/11 events etc. Why not invite Peter Dale Scott, whose books are essential reading for anyone seriously interested in what has been and is going on. Ditto for Nafeez Ahmed from the UK. What Mr Scheuer had to say in this last program was just plain wrong on so many points. Not a question of opinion, but a statement of fact. A brief example. the attack on Afghanistan was approved by the Bush administration in July 2001. The Taliban government agreed to hand bin Laden over if the US government provide evidence bin Laden was actually involved in the 9/11 attacks. The US government didn’t even try. etc etc. History and evidence therefrom may not always fit your prejudices, but you have a responsibility to at least present the evidence and let the listener draw the conclusions.

  6. Mr. O’Neil,

    Perhaps you should interview them yourself and then post them on your own website? And perhaps Mr. Horton should really send you a copy of every interview before it is posted, for editing and approval. Mr. Horton should do this for all of his fans, because Mr. Horton has a responsibility to always present ever angle of every story by everyone that listens, and to promote the most everyone’s most important story always, by virtue of having a radio show. You know, for fairness and stuff.

    I am pretty sure your new show will live up to these high standards and I look forward to listening to it. Or maybe you already have one?

  7. "We" made a mistake by going into Iraq. "Our" policies are playing right into their hands.

    The civilian command intentionally lied about WMD's and then lied about the reasons for the occupation. The point being that government officials and the public are not on the same page. There isn't a shared agenda because the real agenda is hidden from the public.

    Also I don't understand how anyone can refer to Iraq as a mistake. A mistake is leaving your headlights on overnight. Invading and occupying Iraq is something else.

    Why should the public believe that government officials act in good faith? For example, the CIA has never leveled with the public in regards to why they withheld the alHazmi/alMihdhar intel for 20 months. Only a week ago, Cofer Black blamed the CIA's failure to prevent 9/11 on lack of manpower and funding.

  8. Hey, Chrissy. Stop embarrasing yourself. Supporters like you make Scott look bad. Scott fails to have key people on whose factual info is essential to understand events. If you’ll pardon me for belaboring the point, why didn’t the CIA arrest Bin Laden when they met with him at the American Hospital in Dubai in July of ’01? Hey Crissy, google The Northwoods Document, maybe that will bring you out of your stupor.

  9. Frank,

    Northwoods, lol. Like I’ve never read about Northwoods, watched Loose Change, read Tarpley, listened to Alex Jones, or been to Rense. The name calling is pretty cute, but you should get over yourself.

    I was like you once, then I realized there is more to foreign policy then “the CIA pulled off 9/11″. It is called intervention. I’ve seen all the 9/11 videos, read all the stuff that is out there. 9/11 Synthetic Terror is an awesome book. Do I think that 9/11 was shady? Yes. Do I think Israel and Cheney knew something was up and either let it happen or enable it? Sure. Are there connections between OBL and the CIA? Duh? Where I start to disagree is when people claim that the entire thing was some elaborate plan carried out entirely (and competently) by the US Government and then buried. There is more to intervention then crying 9/11 9/11 until everyone agrees with you. Reading stuff besides the same old 9/11 Truth arguments over and over and over is not intellectually stimulating. It is merely another Divide and Conquer “with us or against us” strategy.

    Besides, my point was that you make a ridiculous claim of Scott Horton being some kind of disinformation psyop government agent, and then mention Alex Jones, is pretty hilarious. Everything Scott Horton says should be taken with a grain of salt, but not Alex Jones! He’s a patriot! Since you are into google, why don’t you try typing “Alex Jones Vatican” and “Alex Jones Zionist” into google and see where brilliant insights such as your first comment lead? Ever heard of Bill Cooper or WingTV? You should check out what they have to say about your fearless leader Alex Jones. Alex Jones, is he a Zionist or does he follow the Vatican? Conspiracies built on conspiracies built on conspiracies, Oh noes!

    Did you ever think that Alex Jones is a sensationalist? Sure, he produces some good nuggets, but why don’t you look into his work before 9/11 and get back to me? Alex Jones didn’t just pop up out of the ground on sept. 11. Why don’t you look into his fearmongering and sensationalism regarding Y2K before you make your claims about how great his reporting is? Don’t forget to buy some DVDs and a water filter while browsing his archives.

    If I want to read about Northwoods or remote control planes or “Loose Change” or Cuban exiles killing Kennedy, or Bigfoot, or Aliens, or whatever, I’ll go read infowars and rense. If I want to read/listen to articles and interviews regarding the status of the war, the dangers of interventionist foreign policy, abuses by government, etc. (i.e. not the same 9/11 stuff I’ve known about for years and years), I read sites like antiwar.com, LewRockwell, CounterPunch, Consortium News, Glenn Greenwald etc. That kind of criminality is all happening now, right in front of us, not 7 years ago, so while you waste everyone’s time screaming about the same old “truther” shit: WTC7, Northwoods, NORAD, over and over and over and over, I’ll focus on what the Government is doing now. I’ve watched all of Alex Jones’ videos and I respect the guy, but there is more out there than the same tired 9/11 stuff being repeated for years.

    I mean, seriously, doesn’t rehashing the same old stuff about 9/11 ever get boring? Do you really think any of the information you’ve posted in these comments is new and interesting stuff to those that have seen it all already? Do any of you myopic morons who constantly chase the 9/11 red herring ever think outside of the 9/11 Truth box? It’s like a fucking cult with you people, anything outside of 100% agreement regarding 9/11 is considered heretical and cause for an agenda investigation. Why not just change antiwar.com and antiwar radio to the 9/11 truth show? Oh wait, there are already lots of those, you are free to those sites and get off nodding your head and agreeing with everybody, because that is what you are seeking. Consensus.

    I won’t pardon you for anything. If you have so much to say, you should create your own radio show. I’m sure a lot of people will listen to it. Maybe you can add some pages to the sites claiming everyone else who doesn’t 100% agree with the site owner is some sort of secret Mossad/Vatican/CIA/Freemason disinformation agent?

  10. “Scott fails to have key people on whose factual info is essential to understand events.”

    Like I said, you clowns should create your own radio show. Fill in the gaps and show everyone the truth. With such explosive revelations as the ones you’ve posted in response to this interview, I’m sure lots of people will listen.

    Or is it more convenient to bitch about 9/11 in comment sections on the Internet and hope to change the minds of the people at antiwar.com, people who are actually doing something? Maybe if you spend a few more years bitching about how antiwar.com and antiwar radio aren’t obsessed with 9/11 they will come around and agree with you, realizing the “responsibility” you claim they have (even though they have absolutely no responsibility to do any of the things that you request and/or demand)… It’s Scott Horton’s show, he can interview whoever he wants and believe whatever he wants. If you don’t like what he says, either don’t listen or do something about it besides bitch, like spreading the truth yourself, i.e. Shit or get off the pot.

  11. And the essential question you fail to answer–do you believe the official story,so full of holes that you could drive the proverbial truck through it, that Osama and the terrorists hit us on 9/11 or is the whole thing a “false-flag” operation designed to get the public to support the central Asian war for oil around the Caspian Sea and encirlcle Russia.

  12. Who says the two scenarios are mutually exclusive? You appear to have an overly simple view of things. It’s all either black or it’s not black, isn’t it?

    To answer your “questions”:

    Do I believe the story as presented by the 9/11 Commission Report. no.

    Do I think that the US Government is competent enough to pull of something like 9/11 as a false flag, and also have the competence to keep it secret. no.

  13. Chris, I think you’re missing the point about Northwoods and 911 et al: People want justice.

    They never let go until they get it. It’s human nature, like many of the slaves, once released, spent the rest of their lives searching for their sold relatives. Some people call it closure. Some people feel that more nd more they need to watch the
    “government” because of these cumulative crimes, and that’s a *good* thing.

    NEVER FORGET.

    Kathleen M. Dickson
    http://www.actionlyme.org

  14. No, Kathleen, they don’t want “justice” they want consensus so that they feel their opinions are validated.

    If the “Truthers” cared so much about “Justice” then perhaps they should turn their attention to the crimes our Government is carrying out RIGHT NOW in broad daylight?

    But no, they would rather join the 9/11 Truth cult, sit in the pews, and chant “I agree” in unison other over and over while demonizing everyone else, e.g. claiming someone is a government agent because he or she doesn’t try and connect EVERYTHING to 9/11 and put EVERYTHING in the context of 9/11. It is really annoying to meet people like that in “the real world”.

    Do you want to alienate potentially sympathetic and open-minded people when it comes to explaining the problems of institutions like the Federal Reserve, or problems associated with general economic and foreign intervention? Then by all means, spend your time ranting and sensationalizing the same old 9/11 theories that everyone has heard a million times by now and be perceived as an emotional blowhard. Or, focus on the big picture, i.e. intervention, blowback, empire, central banking, “spreading freedom and democracy” etc., and show that the emperor is naked by relating such themes to what is happening RIGHT NOW, and you’d be surprised how much easier it is to get people on your side.

    The US has been intervening in the affairs of other nations for over 50 years. 9/11 was merely a symptom of the disease, but if you feel that the cure is to rant about the symptoms and not the root cause, that is your prerogative. Just don’t be surprised when people dismiss your obsessive compulsive tunnel vision because you fail to articulate how 9/11 fits into the big picture and would rather chase ghosts and solve mysteries.

  15. Scott’s format is wonderful because he interviews one person at a time and presses for insight based in his remarkable command of the subject matter itself. He is civil enough to let people have their opinions. If you put two people on you get a debate which never goes deeper than surface point-counterpoint. Scott interviews all sorts of sources, so the cumulative benefit is huge–and that archive is unparalleled. Also you’re all brilliant and I agree with all of you.

  16. I don’t understand why some people seem to get more upset with 9/11 truthers than with government officials who have never accounted for their pre-9/11 conduct.

    The Bush administration basically claimed they needed dictatorial powers to prevent follow up attacks. The intel community blamed their bizarre conduct on the lack of power and funding. I would say that 9/11 was used as pretext for a fascist powergrab. IMO, that is more upsetting than the ravings of some Alex Jones fans.

  17. So you don’t like conservatives Scott? Okok. Why does Michael Scheuer need to be told this, like he defends and represents them, when he clearly doesn’t, which is why he’s on your show in the first place? It’s like you’re trying to put him in his place for being a big bad conservative. A bit embarrassing.

    Let’s see you do it to a liberal….hang on, they would never go on your show again if you did.

  18. Anne,

    Which part? Where I said Republicans always expand government more than Dems?

    Scheuer is a Ron Paul guy like me, so (without listening to the whole thing again) I don’t know why I would have done such a thing as what you describe in the interview – “trying to put him in his place” and such.

    Plus, didn’t I complain to Glenn last week about the liberals abandoning their antiwar stances in favor of their Obama worship and all that?

    Either way, I have a difficult task in trying to get the best out of my liberal and conservative guests without beating them over the head about the parts of what they say that drive me crazy. Sometimes I’m worse at it than others. Apologies to those offended.

Leave a Reply