anyone catch 'anonymous' on npr's diane rehm show this morning?

[bpilgrim]

the one thing that bothers me about his whole 'story' is that he painted a picture of policy makers being to 'PC' and therefore SOFT on terrorism.

he claimed that whenever i opprotunity presented itself to takeout one we would be 'obsessed' with other peoples opinion on what would happen if we did and maybe killed some innocent bystanders.

what i didn't like is that he tried to make it sound like we were just concerned about our image while not mentioning once LAW.

that scares me.

it make me feel like we were being CONDITIONED to want and DEMAND more VIOLENCE or at the very least to be PREPARED for it when it comes next since that is what is required, apparantly to deal with terrorism.

my expectations were high when he pointed out our POLICIES are responcible for the terrorism directed at us BUT he nevered discussed any remedies via policy adjustments.

i tried to call in but it was always busy...

anyways...

did anyone else notice this or is it just me =)

peace

(on edit: and aint it freakin weird that 'anonymous' is giving interviews to major news orgs :crazy: )

[buycitgo]

1. yes I did. glad you brought it up

he's kinda nuts, in a lot of ways

one) don't think he said it here, but tonight he said on Hardball that he thought CASEY was the best CIA chief in his memory, cause he was a real Ops kinda guy, who wasn't afraid to really hit the hammer.
course, he was a rotten, thieving, lying psychopath, too, but ask John LeCarre if that fits the profile of a successful spook

his six pillars of US policy which Muslim extremist hate us for (instead of our freedoms) make some sense, though I don't know what some of them are

ALSO, he claims the CIA and FBI wall is BS, and that they SHOULD have been talking to each other

interesting contradiction with Kristen Breitweiser's thought that CIA refused to share info on the two guys in US because they thought the FBI were total fuckups

he also said our choice is between war and endless war

he's a real hardcore special ops kinda guy.

main point is that SO WHAT if there was a Saudi prince with binLaden when we were ready to go (he said the world is LOUSY with Saudi Princes)

a very very weird guy

third and fourth times I heard/saw him now

[bpilgrim]

3. exactly - he acts like we've been play'n with kid-gloves abroad

and now it's time to get tough :nuke:

though at the same time he does spotlight a lot of the BS in the rhetoric comming from the politicos like... 'they hate us for our freedoms'

'we are currently LOSING the war'
etc...

but it sounds like his msg in the end is that we need to get 'TOUGHER' abroad and we will win.

well we are now RAPING TORTURING and MURDERING WOMEN and CHILDREN how much tougher can we get :shrug:

i smell a rat

peace

[alfredo]

7. Rape, murdering women and children is not tough, it is sick.

dong that is not getting tough, it is counter productive.

Getting tough means getting focused, and putting everything into it.

Bush's actions has taken away most options we had, now it is kill or be killed. that may have been the idea to begin with. It fits this administrations MO.

[buycitgo]

8. I agree, but not having read the book....

he must deal with this conundrum in some way

we CAN't win militarily against a billion Osamas

he mentions the six policy problems they have with us, and there has to be some sort of solution, according to him, I guess, involving them

but I don't see any way of getting past the religio/cultural impasse we've created, then exacerbated with things like Fallujah and Abu Ghraib: they DON't forget

and that's another MAJOR point re: AlQaeda--> they're content to wait a LONG time before they strike; they don't see time the way we do.

so, basically, we're really screwed

thanks, george

[bpilgrim]

9. "now it is kill or be killed"

it is if we don't make any policy changes but i haven't heard anyone cept DK talk about any changes.

the future looks very BRIGHT...


peace

[buycitgo]

10. believe it or not, the commission report calls for just

such sane actions. I saw the paragraph in the recommendations section this morning, as Brian Lamb was reading either that one, or one below it

very sensible suggestions, but ones which will NEVER be acted upon by this junta

[bpilgrim]

14. really? i will check it out

i wonder why we aren't having more of an honest public debate on our foreign policy :shrug:

never mind... the FATCATS who OWN the media will have NONE of it. :argh:

peace

[buycitgo]

2. btw, she kept calling him Mike. was that a convenience, or what

I missed the first fifteen minutes

[bpilgrim]

4. supposedly you can look up all Michael Scheuer credentials online - link

'Boston Phoenix' IDs 'Anonymous' CIA Officer

Published: June 30, 2004

NEW YORK The active U.S. intelligence officer known only as "Anonymous," who has gained world renown this month as author of an upcoming book called "Imperial Hubris," is actually named Michael Scheuer, according to an article in the Boston Phoenix today by Jason Vest.

Speculation about his identity has run rampant since a June 23 article in The New York Times discussed the book and the background of the author. The book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror," asserts, among other things, that Osama bin Laden is not on the run and that the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer.

In that June 23 piece, the Times identified Anonymous as a 22-year CIA veteran who ran the Counterterrorist Center's bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999, adding that a "senior intelligence official" held that revealing the man's full name "could make him a target of Al Qaeda." Anonymous has appeared in brief television interviews always in silhouette.

According to Vest, "Nearly a dozen intelligence-community sources, however, say Anonymous is Michael Scheuer -- and that his forced anonymity is both unprecedented and telling in the context of CIA history and modern politics."


more...
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000557752

peace

[bpilgrim]

5. only us two?

or is this a dupe :shrug:

peace

[buycitgo]

6. par for the course

he's quite the warrior

wonder if he has any scalps

[GiovanniC]

11. Read His Excerpt in USA Today

Honestly, I think the dude is batshit.

When I first saw that he was saying, "Why America is LOSING the War on Terror", I thought it would be similar to remarks made by military thinkers such as Wes Clark.

Instead, it was essentially, "Right now, we're losing because new terrorists are being created faster than we can kill them all! We must increase killings until we start having net terrorist losses. If 10,000 new terrorists are created in a month, we must kill 10,001! And fuck those civilian ragheads, too!"

[bpilgrim]

12. wil do

thanks for the tip :toast:

guess i ain't the only one ;->

peace

[buycitgo]

13. that's kinda what I figured

when he was talking about the idiocy of Iraq, I was thinking about getting the book

then, he kept talking

[bpilgrim]

15. it would probably be a good read

to get a better inkling on what the CIA wants us to think think :evilgrin:

peace