Michael Scheuer responded to me taking him to task for calling Richard Clarke and FBI Agent John O’Neill the “authors of 9-11”. He did not recant. We exchanged three sets of email, which was copied to a group of intel officers I correspond with on a regular basis. Scheuer asked me not to post his responses. However, I will summarize the thrust of his remarks and provide the responses I sent him:
SCHEUER’S FIRST RESPONSE:
Scheuer suggests that my op-ed from the summer of 2001 showed that I didn’t understand terrorism and reiterated his claim that Clarke and O’Neill were not interested in protecting Americans through preemption.
AND, MY RESPONSE TO MIKEY:
Michael,
As is typical of your tenure at the CIA, you don’t do your research properly. I was the one who directed Jeff Gerth of the NY Times, way back in 1995, to look at this guy Bin Laden. His August 1995 story in the NY Times was the result of that. You can’t find one thing I have ever written where I said we should ignore Bin Laden. In fact, go back and read the November 7, 2000 op-ed that Milt Bearden and I wrote. We clearly identified Bin Laden as THE threat that the next President would have to confront. So shove that up your ass.
What most outsiders don’t know is that your initial assignment to CTC was not because you were such a “stellar” analyst. EUR was’t keen to keep you around because of your limitations. As you should recall, CTC was a dumping ground for analysts who couldn’t cut it in the front line units. You obviously brought those same mediocre talents you honed in EUR to the task of finding Bin Laden.
While I’m not a big fan of Richard Clarke or John O’Neill, you are way out of line writing that they were the “authors” of 9-11. Are you really that deluded or are you simply a vicious little prick? O’Neill is dead and can’t defend himself. I suspect Clarke considers you not worthy of a second thought. You are an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis.
You owe Clarke and the family of O’Neill an apology.
Always happy to chat with you.
Larry Johnson
SCHEUER’S WROTE BACK:
Osama bin-Laden
He said I was trying to paint Bin Laden as a media creation and that I was not interested, ever, in protecting America first.
MY RESPONSE:
Michael,
Let’s start with intelligence officers I respect–Paul Pillar, Mel Goodman, Ray McGovern, George Allen, Pat Lang, Dale Ackels, and George Laing. You know what’s fascinating about that group–every one served in the military. Unlike you, they actually put on a uniform and went to war zones to serve their country. Every single one, like me, believe first and foremost in protecting America. The difference between us and you is that we have an understanding of reality. In your rich little fantasy world, it is only Mikey Scheuer who sees the truth. But you need to come to grips with your own inadequacies and personal failures. At the outset of your career at CIA you were not considered qualified to be selected to the Career Trainee program. Only a select group of folks were accepted into the CT program. Your mediocrity continued after you switched to the Counter Terrorism Center. You made no effort to learn Arabic and immerse yourself in the culture of the people you were supposed to find, fix, and finish. Let’s face it, you’re the Salieri of intelligence analysts.
Guys I know and respect say that as a person, you’re a nice guy. Out of your depth, but a nice guy. I am beginning to question that. Your rage against Clarke and O’Neill is really puzzling. Unlike you, I’ve worked in both policy and intelligence parts of government. I coordinated from the State Department side the FBI investigation of Pan Am 103. I have also spent the last 12 years working with U.S. military special operations forces. What I have learned is that every organization thinks they are the only ones who can get a job done but, in truth, we need an integration of effort and the talents of all.
Yet, you blame Clarke and O’Neill for 9-11. In case you were asleep during 2001, Richard Clarke presented President Bush a detailed action plan of things that needed to be done to go after Bin Laden. His plan reflected the frustration he felt that the Clinton Administration had not done enough. George Bush responded by demoting Clarke, by ignoring the August PDB, and by failing to convene a meeting to address US counter terrorism policy until September 10th. Clarke was trying to get something done and was ignored. O’Neill had left the FBI and had started a job at the World Trade Center, where he died on September 11th. Your disgusting attack on these men is cowardly. And the next time I see you I will call you a coward to your face.
Your tendency to embellish and fabricate is on display in your most recent response to me. I don’t know where you are getting this nonsense about “spiders, lawn mowers” etc. I would challenge you to provide the reference and quote but won’t waste your time because I have never said nor written such a thing. What I wrote in the summer of 2001 is that nuclear proliferation is a greater threat than terrorism. I still think that is true. I never said terrorism was not a threat or should be ignored. It speaks volumes about your limited intellect that you are reduced to repeating rightwing talking points rather than address the substance of what I have said and written.
Finally, as far as incompetence is concerned, take a good look in the mirror. The face staring back at you is the quintessential picture of incompetence.
Larry Johnson
THE FINAL EXCHANGE:
Scheuer accuses me of being a cowardly Democrat and sticks by his criticism of Clarke and O’Neill.
AND MY FINAL WORD:
Michael,
I know nothing of “moral cowardice” since I’m still a registered Republican. But here again we see the true Michael Scheuer on display–obsessed with red herrings, unable to see the big picture, and prone to just making shit up. The fact that some of your analysis on Iraq is accurate simply reflects the old saying about blind squirrels finding nuts once in a while. My anger with Bush started when he stood idly by while his underlings outed an undercover CIA officer, Valerie Wilson, who was a member of my CT class. If you would pull your head out of your ass for a second and look at the names of some of the folks on this intel distribution list you would see Patrick Lang, Gary Berntsen, Milt Bearden, Jack McCavitt, Jim Smith, Marc Sageman and Bill Wagner. All were field ops officers who are not known as Democratic activists of any sort.
I have no trouble with fair criticism and accurate analysis, but your shitty little piece in the Washington Times is outrageous. When you claim that Richard Clarke and John O’Neill are the “authors” of 9-11 you eliminate any credibilty you may have had as an expert. If you were just some homeless guy sitting around in a dumpster fondling himself your comment would deserve no attention whatsoever. However, because of your experience you know better than to claim a lie as truth. Unfortunately, this modus operandi is your signature. You are sloppy in your writing and thinking. You are a parochial extremist with limited experience in the real world. You spent so much time as a Government bureaucrat working in only one institution that you have no real appreciation for working in an interagency environment much less the real world. Your failure to get Bin Laden is part of the reason that he was still around to help direct 9-11. Your screw up, however, does not make you the author of 9-11. It just means you are not very competent.
Now that you are bereft of senior analysts to review your writing and tighten up your analysis, we’re getting a great look at the factors that kept you from advancing in EUR and inspired you to seek refuge in CTC. Your blanket accusation that Democrats are segregationists, socialists, and cowards is, unfortunately, another sign of how immature and childish your world view is. Just when I think you’ve said the most stupid thing you could, you surpass yourself. Who would have thought that you are completely incapable of accurately describing history. As I recall it was Harry Truman, a Democrat from my hometown, who desegregated the military. It was a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the Voting Rights Act. I would also note that there are far more Democrats in Congress who have served in the military than Republicans.
I am not respectfully yours. I respect nothing about you. I pity you.
Larry Johnson
This would be hilarious if he hadn’t been in charge of getting bin-Laden before 9/11. John O’Neill was too busy getting plastered at Elaine’s to do his job, and Scheuer appears to be a flat-out wingnut. Wingnuts should not be trusted in any positions of responsibility. When did this guy drink the kool-aid? Were segregationists? WTF?
Boo, this will be my only once response to John. He did more than most on a lot of chasing UBL. He was framed and ran into brick walls more times than not. Those, placed by our own ppl, BTW. Boo, we all have vices in our life. I am sure you do to; however, it does not stop you from seeking the truth and following your heart to those truths you heartfully believe in. I for one with ppl like this will not prejudge until I have absolute fact that he was not who he was and so be it.
Larry, you did well. Thanks….
Maybe I missed some things about O’Neill, but I’ve never heard anything before about him getting plastered at Elaine’s or anywhere else, nor did I ever hear anyone with the exception of the blazing egomniac Louis Freeh, his sidekick Tom Pickard, or the odious Barbara Bodine make any comments on the record disparaging O’Neill’s devotion to his work and his diligence in pursuing the terror business in the real world.
I’d be interested if you can cite any evidence at all relating to your allusions to his drinking or his failure to do his job to the extent he was able.
This link here is to an excellent “Frontline” documentary about O’Neill. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it but if you’re not you may find it enlightening.
O’Neill was well known at Elaine’s and like Woody Allen, had his own table.
link.
Yes! I remember reading this story about O’Neill you link to when it came out.
But, in case I’d forgotten something I just read it again. Maybe I’m mistaken but I can’t seem to find the bits about him getting plastered and not doing his job.
That`s a not so subtle reminder to never piss you off. [Not that I ever would.]
Great response.
i love men with balls
no kidding. I wish I could read the full exchange.
I find this all pretty surprising, when he released "Imperial Hubris" I seem to remember him doing the rounds of the "liberal media" and he didn’t seem like a wingnut at all. I guess while he was selling books, he could come across like a normal human being.
My first clue that Scheuer was not necessarily what he appeared to be was simply that the rightwing pundit class didn’t attack him vehemently. He fooled a lot of people for a long time, masquerading as the voice of reason. But his relentless repetitive mantra attacking the Clinton presidency seems to be somewhere close to the center of every appearance he makes on the talking head gasbag circuit, and I suspect this was the raison d’etre for him being deployed into the media circus in the first place. Matthews and Russert like to have him on fairly often too; another clue he’s more likely to be a dirtbag propagandist than not.
For a cat from a small town in the upper Midwest, this is pretty heady stuff. It also reinforces calvin’s belief that after the Rethugs are out of power, a HUGE house-cleaning is in order.
That Scheuer’s original piece about Bill and Hillary and Sandy, etc., appeared in Reverend Moon’s–yes, he of the Moonie cult–paper, the Washington Times, tells a lot.
Only political hacks who enjoy playing toady to their White House masters write in the Times.
The WT is only good for one thing, but your canary already knows that.
When Clinton was leaving office in early January 2001, he told GW that there were three things he needed to know about terrorism; those three things were; Bin laden, Bin Laden and Bin Laden.
One of the first things Georgie does when assuming power is to discontinue the unmanned aerial drone that had been used to keep an eye on Bin Laden.
Smooth move, Georgie boy. Bet the Dark Prince and the actual prez, “Big Dick” Cheney told you to cancel the UAV.
Wow, Scheuer’s oped in the Washington Times and this email exchange says a lot about Scheuer, none of it good. Blaming O’Neill and Clarke for 9/11 is beyond the pale. Scheuer is appealing to GOP prejudices in order to ensure his next paycheck. It’s disgusting. It needs to stop.
I bought Scheuer’s book, Imperial Hubris, but hadn’t gotten around to reading it yet. Part of me was reluctant to read it actually. But I was unable to put the nagging bad feeling I had about the book and Scheuer into words. Well, Larry Johnson just did it for me.
Leslie