Michael Scheuer’s Glass House

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_web...

Michael Scheuer’s Glass House
By Larry C Johnson
Monday, 10 July 2006 at 16:07

Former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer hit the hypocrisy trail last week with his attack op-ed on the credibility of Richard Clarke and the FBI. According to Scheuer:

Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke — the former "terrorism czar" — and a senior FBI officer, the late John O’Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC’s fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke’s stories and claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission’s dream come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O’Neill — in my view, two principal authors of September 11 — will be beatified.

Mr. Clarke’s book, on the basis of my involvement to varying degrees in the issues it covers, is a mixture of fact, fiction and cover-up. Mr. Clarke seems to get most names and dates right, and is correct in damning the early Bush administration for obliviousness to the al Qaeda threat. We must also take him at his word on his touching, if sycophantic, tales of Mr. Clinton instructing a young boy to be good to his mom and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s secluded moment praying on her knees.

Scheuer, in case you forgot, authored Through Our Enemies Eyes as Anonymous. He later acquired a measure of fame and condemnation for his subsequent book, published in 2004, that was very critical of George Bush. Maybe Scheuer is trying to get back into the good graces of the Bush crowd or is miffed that Hollywood didn’t recognize his genuis.

I personally think Scheuer is completely full of shit. To characterize Clarke and O’Neill as the "principal authors of 9-11" is idiotic and wrongheaded. No U.S. person or official was the author of 9-11. Khalid Sheik Mohammed enjoys that distinction. An FBI buddy, who worked at the Counter Terrorism Center with Scheuer has some great details on Scheuer’s tenure at CTC.

In an article dated July 5th, 2006, authored by Mike Scheuer, he once again took the opportunity to criticize the FBI and its personnel. This theme has been repeated by him in his books, articles and interviews aired on television. Also, as usual, Mr. Scheuer paints himself and the members of his former bin Laden Unit, in the best light. To my knowledge, no one from the FBI has challenged Mr. Scheuer’s views. I worked in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (CTC) with Mr. Scheuer, so I speak from experience.

CTC was comprised of exceptional, collegial, talented, and dedicated men and women from many disciplines within the Agency. It also had in its ranks equally talented men and women representing other Agencies within the federal government. All with one purpose; “to prevent disrupt and defeat” terrorism. My comments below are not directed at CTC; just Mr. Scheuer and a handful of individuals who served in his Unit.

In my view, Mr. Scheuer was the single most important obstacle to the CIA and FBI working together against al Qaeda. He did not believe in sharing information and working with the FBI. He more than once told me that the FBI had no business working terrorism matters overseas; that was CIA’s territory. Even more important than Mr. Scheuer not being a collegial partner, he negatively influenced several of his subordinates which polluted the atmosphere in his Unit among those subordinates against the FBI. If he was not actively opposing the FBI, he merely did not support their mission. This opinion is shared by every FBI Agent that ever served in his Unit.

Mike was and is an extremely intelligent and talented individual. He was a CIA treasure in the fight against terrorism. However, he failed to understand the concept that although intelligence and law enforcement come from different cultures, America was best served by the CIA and FBI working together against terrorist targets. A CIA disruption of a terrorist plot overseas is a tremendous success, however it can be even a bigger success if the terrorist plotters are prosecuted and put behind bars. Putting them behind bars requires more coordination; more working with the FBI; and, administratively a much more difficult operation. In the end, Mr. Scheuer’s intransigence outweighed his value.

It could be said that Mike Scheuer and John O’ Neill were viewed as the faces of the CIA and FBI in their respective agency’s efforts against bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists. Of course, so many others in each organization contributed much to the fight and arguably played equal or more significant roles. Mr. Scheuer’s quote in his article, “Mr. O’Neill was interested only in furthering his career and disguising the rank incompetence of senior FBI leaders”, is not only an inaccurate assessment; it is, petty and juvenile. Mr. Scheuer’s jealousy of John O’Neill is apparent and reprehensible. It further demonstrates that Mike viewed counterterrorism efforts as a contest rather than a coordinated cooperative effort.

Mr. Scheuer further states in his article, “Mr. Clarke’s claim that ‘the CIA had taken months to tell the FBI’ several hijackers were in America is a lie. FBI officers sat in the unit I first commanded and then served in and they read the same information I did. If the data did not get to FBI headquarters it is because the FBI then lacked, and still lacks, a useable computer system.” Mr. Scheuer is accurate in his criticism of the FBI computer system; however he is disingenuous in using that as the reason for the FBI not obtaining the information referred to in a timely fashion.

By January 2000, Mr. Scheuer had been relieved of command of the bin Laden Unit. According to unclassified documents, early in January 2000, the CIA was aware that Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the future 9/11 hijackers, was an al Qaeda operative; met with other operatives in Malaysia; and had a multiple entry US visa. By March 2000, they were also aware that Nawaf al-Hazmi, another future hijacker was at the same meeting and was in the US. However, as stated above, Mr. Scheuer’s legacy lived on with his closest analytical subordinates who continued Mr. Scheuer’s practice of non cooperation with the FBI. When an FBI Agent assigned to the Unit, learned of the meeting in Malaysia, and that one of the participants held a multiple entry US visa, he drafted a communication from the CIA to the FBI. This communication was not released, being withheld by one of Mr. Scheuer’s former subordinates; the Deputy Chief of the bin Laden Unit.

During June 2006, the US Department of Justice released a report from the Office of the Inspector General which stated in part, “In sum, the evidence shows that in January and March 2000, the CIA uncovered important intelligence information about Mihdhar and Hazmi.....Yet, we found that the CIA did not share significant pieces of this information with the FBI....” Further, “An FBI detailee at the CIA drafted a CIR (Central Intelligence Report) to share with the FBI, but the information was not released by the CIA to the FBI.”

Wouldn’t that be a stunner? Michael Scheuer’s minions refused to share the info that Al Qaeda operatives were in the United States? Looks like Scheuer’s quest for hero status has run aground.

UPDATE

Mr. Scheuer responded but asked that I not post his comments. I will summarize his remarks and provide the response 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:

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