Talk:Michael Scheuer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Background on Scheuer's resignation from the CIA: Washington Post article, November 12, 2004 - Walkiped 00:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scheuer is no longer anonymous; he's done book tours where he talks about "my book" and signs copies. AaronSw 20:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Scheuer on swedish TV4

I just saw a documentary about a german citizen originally from Lebanon that was on a holiday to Macedonia that was detained and later moved to a prison in Afghanistan. He was abducted for about 5 months. This was in relation to the egyptians that was deported to Egypt by swedish officials with the help of american "military personnel". He was used to depict the US position that Human Rights had served it's purpose and was know only used to bash USA. Link to TV4 (in swedish)

[edit] Michael Scheuer was the **FAILED** Chief of the bin Laden Unit

That chould be made clear in this article. That unit never captured or killed bin Laden despite their support of the failed cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan. The unit also supported the errant strike on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan.

"Failed" is POV. If you want to put here that bin Laden was not captured during this time, it's fine, but I don't think you can point to any evidence that it is Scheuer's fault. In fact, I'm quite certain of that, because I've read the accounts of what happened during the Clinton Administration. Please stop your little jihad against all the articles dealing with terrorism. And please sign your work as you have been asked to do over and over.--csloat 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
on 60 minutes, Scheuer describes being overruled in arguing for a missile strike on Bin Laden due to risk of killing a few Saudi princes.

[edit] Out-of-context Quotes

RonCram seems to be making a WP:POINT using this page. I don't have any objection to including quotations from , but RonCram only included quotes addressing Saddam-al-Qaeda contacts because he wants to make a point on another page. This is, I think, an abuse of Wikipedia. If we have quotes from the book on this page they should be to summarize the main point of the book, not pull some obscure (and in at least one case - p. 119 - out of context) information out to prove a point on another page. If there is relevant information in the book for the other page you can quote it there but this page is about Mike Scheuer, not about your conspiracy theory. I will remove the quotes, but as I said I would not object to quotes actually relevant to this page being included here. --csloat 02:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

csloat, the page is about Michael Scheuer. The only reason we know his name is because he was the man in charge of catching Osama bin Laden. Scheuer's views on Osama and Osama's connections are central to what people want to know about Scheuer. Perhaps I laid the quotes on a little thick, but I wanted to make it clear that Scheuer did not accidently misspeak. He was not misquoted. These quotes came from a book he authored. Scheuer spoke about the connection between Osama and Saddam in detail repeatedly. Scheuer is now claiming there was never any connection between Osama and Saddam. Readers have a right to know that Scheuer changed his view. RonCram 11:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ron you are utterly obsessed. You go back to something I deleted last August that I clearly explained, and then you don't refute the argument when you return the quotes! Look, Scheuer's book is not about Saddam and Osama being linked! Your quotes make it appear as if that is all the book was about! It's idiotic! This is just your little crusade to support your claim that Osama worked with Saddam (whom he called a socialist motherfucker!) I am not going to remove your quotes but can you please put in some quotes that actually have something to do with the main thesis of his book? Did you actually read it or did you just pull out whatever you can find about Saddam from the index? This is just absurd Ron. And of course we already have a summary of the book itself on the page about the book! As for Scheuer changing his view, can you please substantiate that too? Thanks.(I see the interview there)--csloat 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the man and his views. There were multiple quotes on the page about his view of the link before I saw the page. Only before I got here, the only view expressed in these quotes was the view no link existed. We can go back and see who put those quotes here. If you want a section on the thesis of the book, I would support that. In the mean time, you have to admit that including quotes for one of Scheuer's views and not the other has to be seen as POV. The only way to be NPOV is to give a complete picture. I have discussed why these quotes are not redundant below.RonCram 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here are the quotes csloat deleted

These quotes are found in Michael Scheuer's book Through Our Enemies's Eyes published in 2002:

  • [Bin Laden] "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum station." (p. 119)
  • "In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." (p. 124)
  • "There is information showing that in the 1993-1994 period bin Laden began to work with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a CBRN capability for al Qaeda." (p. 124)
  • "Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted, was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear [CBRN] weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin al-Khalq." (p. 184)
  • "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the FSU (former Soviet Union) states and has sought and received help from Iraq." (p. 190)
  • "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development." (p. 192)


Ron, every single one of these quotes refers to the same incident, which is already recorded on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline, and which occurred in 1994. The first quote is blatantly out of context; I don't have time to look at the rest but they all refer to the same thing. One quote about the supposed contact with Hijazi is fine. We know for a fact that the Iraqis and al Qaeda could not sustain a relationship and that it fell apart after 1998. This is why you think Scheuer changed his mind. I'm not sure why you think this is so important except to pursue your one-dimensional conspiracy theory that puts several lifelong American public servants in cahoots to commit treason.--csloat 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the re-insertion of at least some of these quotes. I suggest that CSloat's position of "I don't have time to look at..." these quotes is a defacto concession that his opposition to their inclusion is baseless. CS, I call on you to support your opposition to each of these quotes individually. On those which you do not speak, you are waiving your opposition. Therefore, if you excise them after they are re-inserted, that will be a bad-faith action. Merecat 21:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for joining this discussion. You're looking at an old portion of the discussion; please see followup below. I have since re-read the book and specifically looked at every quote. I have now read this book four times, and I have taught it in a university course in two different semesters. I would wager that Mr. Cram has not read it once but only looked up "Iraq" in the index. I would rather see quotes that accurately reflect what the book is about.
Your argument would be correct if my main claim was that these quotes are out of context -- however, my claim is not that at all; I only pointed out that the first one was out of context because it was so blatant. My claim is that they are needlessly redundant (they all assert the same thing, and refer to the same alleged "connection" with Hijazi). Additionally, I argue that the claim that this is a notable or "dramatic" "change of heart" is WP:NOR of exactly the type you critique in your comment below on the "paradox" section. We already have quotes documenting what he believed in this book and what he believed in the interview years later; the inclusion of these additional quotes adds redundant information for the sole purpose of making an original research claim about Scheuer's alleged "change of heart." That "change" has not been noticed by anyone in the mass media or any scholar or anyone other than RonCram of whom I am aware. It is absurd to hilight it on wikipedia as a sly way of destroying the man's credibility. Let's stick to charges that have actually been published about Scheuer.--csloat 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Scheuer's change of heart

csloat, I thought you had reformed from your practice of censorship. It appears not. This article should discuss Scheuer's change of heart regarding the relationship between Osama and Saddam Hussein. In 2002, when Scheuer's book Through Our Enemies' Eyes was published, Scheuer wrote repeatedly about the relationship and cooperation between Osama and Saddam. This is a significant issue because Pres Bush used as one of his reasons for invading Iraq the fact he was afraid Saddam would equip Osama with a WMD or provide him with other resources to attack the U.S. In 2002, Scheuer was convinced of the relationship. Yet by 2004, Scheuer was making public appearances on TV shows like Hardball saying there was no evidence of a relationship between the two ever. For now, I have entered a single quote from Scheuer's book, but a fuller discussion of this issue is warranted. For example, I certainly do not want to leave readers with the mistaken idea that Scheuer continues his public affirmations of the cooperation between Osama and Saddam.RonCram 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were going to stop calling me a censor! Ron you are picking on something I deleted last august in order to call me names, and you are ignoring the fact that I justified the deletion clearly. Scheuer did not "write repeatedly" about Saddam and Osama; he mentioned that topic in the context of his thesis, which had nothing to do with that. You make clear that the supposed Saddma/AQ connection was why bush invaded Iraq but you choose to censor the fact that both of Scheuer's books argued passionately against invading Iraq. I think it is fine to leave a quote or two in there and I will not delete them but I do not think it is accurate to portray Scheuer's book as if its main topic was the Saddam/Osama connection.--csloat 17:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ron please stop trying to make this page a forum for your original research. If Scheuer had such a "dramatic" change of heart, why has no published source seen fit to comment on it, much less use it to impugn his credibility? There is already a quote from Through our Enemies Eyes showing what that book says about the alleged ties between Iraq and AQ; we don't need ten quotes saying the same thing in order to make the "change of heart" seem more "dramatic." Again, we've been through this before. You have your silly quotes already in the article; statements about his "change of heart" are original research. Also, if you are so interested in putting in quotes from these books, why not quote the actual thesis of these books rather than bits of extraneous information?--csloat 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I am only trying to present an accurate picture of Scheuer. He is a controversial figure and people need the facts to know why. We need all of these quotes so readers can understand the wide variety of intelligence sources and information known by the intelligence community about the link prior to 9/11. My entry does not fit the definition of "original research" and you know it. These are quotes from Scheuer's book. If you do not like some of my wording, feel free to change it. But the quotes from Scheuer have to stay. RonCram 13:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Scheuer may be controversial but it is not because of these quotes. There is not a single published source who has referenced these quotes. Your claim that they represent anything notable is what counts as original research. Please stop disrupting wikipedia to showcase your bogus point. These quotes are repetitive of quotes already in the article. We've been through this before; knock off the garbage.--csloat 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from a knowledgable source (Michael Scheuer) on a topic which is currently in vogue, (terrorism, Osama, etc.) are inherently notable. And if they are verbatim from book, then as a source, they are reliable. And because they are reliable, are notable and they serve to illustrate this man's viewpoints, then it's absurd to think that we can write coherently about this man, while omitting actual quotes from him, regarding topics he is knowledgable on. Merecat 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment on this matter in the section above. My point is precisely the point you made in response to the "paradox" section below; to hilight these quotes over others is WP:NOR. There is no problem with using one or two quotes to show what Cram wants to show, that Scheuer believed in the 2002 book that there was an Iraqi connection via the Hijazi meeting. There has been a quote in the article with that claim in it all along. What I object to is the creation of a separate section with ten more quotes saying the exact same thing, which gives the false impression that Mr. Scheuer's book is actually about Hijazi. I have no problem inserting quotes from Scheuer, but let us insert quotes that indicate his actual conclusions in the book!--csloat 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, do you really expect merecat to be persuaded by your restating an old argument? There quotes are not repetitive of quotes already in the article. Each of them bring up slightly different issues and information while supporting the same conclusion - that Saddam and Osama did have an operational relationship. These quotes do indicate his actual conclusions from his book. The conclusions from the book are directly opposed to the conclusions he made on the TV shows. It is pure censorship on your part to prevent readers to get a full understanding of Scheuer's position. RonCram 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat can speak for him/herself RonCram. The quotes do not bring up anything different from one another; they all speak to the Hijazi meeting and the alleged connection; we already have a quote to that effect. I doubt you have even read the book enough to know what his "conclusions" are -- the quotes represent minor points in a book that has very different conclusions. As I said, I have read the book four times, and even taught it in a course -- I am well aware of its actual conclusions. If you want "a full understanding of Scheuer's position" you should quote the important parts of the book, not just the parts that support your tedious and irrelevant "point."--csloat 21:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you are misrepresenting the quotes. Here are the quotes found in Scheuer's book Through Our Enemies's Eyes published in 2002:

  • [Bin Laden] "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum station." (p. 119)
  • "In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." (p. 124)
  • "There is information showing that in the 1993-1994 period bin Laden began to work with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a CBRN capability for al Qaeda." (p. 124)
  • "Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted, was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear [CBRN] weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin al-Khalq." (p. 184)
  • "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the FSU (former Soviet Union) states and has sought and received help from Iraq." (p. 190)
  • "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development." (p. 192)

Here are the points Scheuer made:

  • Osama was connected to Iraq's intelligence service
  • Osama wanted CBRN and sought it in cooperation with Sudan and Iraq. He made contact with Hijazi and the relationship "flourished" in the late 1990s.
  • (Not much new in the third quote)
  • Osama trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam. This quote shows Scheuer believed in an operational relationship between Saddam and Osama.
  • Osama sought nukes from former Soviet Union and Iraq provided the introductions. This shows Scheuer's belief the operational relationship including providing introductions to more powerful weapons providers.
  • (Not much new in the final quote)

csloat, you are obviously downplaying these important quotes for your own reasons. I would be willing to exclude the two quotes that do not provide much new information, but the other quotes need to be in the article. Readers need to know Scheuer held this position and then changed his mind later. RonCram 23:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, stop this nonsense. Please actually read the book, and then tell us what you think his thesis is. I guarantee you, his thesis has nothing to do with alleged meetings in Sudan (all of these points refer to the same alleged meetings). Readers already know Scheuer held the position that there were contacts with Iraq; they also know that his current position is that those contacts never amounted to an operational relationship (despite your creative interpretation above). If you think another quote in the quotes section will better illustrate this point that might be fine, but putting six quotes in a separate section about an allegedly "dramatic" change of opinion is bogus, especially when there is no published source noticing this allegedly dramatic change. I'd rather see more information about Scheuer's actual thesis rather than this minor point.--csloat 00:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, I am not arguing his thesis. I simply want to include Scheuer's quotes about a topic that is in the news and may form the basis for an illegitimate attempt to impeach President Bush. If you want to include a section on the thesis of Scheuer's book, please do so. You are the one who has read the book. If you understand his thesis so well, pull out a few quotes that supports your view of his thesis and we will include it. I can guarantee you that in 2002 Scheuer believed in an operational link between Saddam and Osama. His quotes prove that. Your edits show that your main concern is not to inform people but to limit their knowledge or shape the way they think. My goal is to give all the facts and allow people to think for themselves. csloat, as I have said on another Talk page, you need to take a long look at yourself and decide if this is the person you really want to be. I am saying this as politely and civilly as I know how. At one time you agreed to stop censoring articles and I agreed to stop calling you a censor. But your recent edits have shown that you are back to your unacceptable edits. You are losing credibility. RonCram 10:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
To what end should a minor point in the book be blown out of proportion on a page that is supposed to be about Scheuer? If you want to include his quotes about a topic in the news, why not his quotes about Israel or about the war on terrorism or about bin Laden's rhetoric, all of which are far more central in the book than the quotes you pull out? Why do we need six quotes saying the same thing? Where do any of the quotes show an "operational" link? Why has nobody in any published source ever commented on Scheuer's "change of heart" if it is so obvious and notable? Stop using wikipedia to grind your personal axe against him. Please stop the personal attacks on me, Ron; I am not interested in your assessment of my credibility; I am only interested in keeping these articles factual and keeping WP:NOR out of them.--csloat 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, this effort to keep information from readers is pure censorship on your part. Readers deserve to know what Scheuer has said on the subject. Censorship will always fail in the end. RonCram 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ron, I asked you to stop calling me a censor a long time ago. I also asked you to respond to the arguments. You have not offered any reason to put five extra quotes in the article that are absolutely repetitive, and that mislead the reader as to the actual topic of Scheuer's book. I have no problem having quotes in -- and in my last edit I even left two quotes in, even though such a portrayal of the book vastly overrepresents this particular argument in the book! Ron, you have not even read this book yet you are insisting on having half of this page be quotes that you pulled out of the index because you think it helps you prove an argument on another page. Please review the arguments above, Ron.--csloat 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I agreed to stop calling your deletions censorship when you agreed to stop deleting material for purely idealogical reasons. You have returned to your old ways and, as I have explained before, it is needful to call your deletions as what they are. Review the different points each of these quotes make (as outlined above) and you will see why it is necessary all of the quotes are relevant and available to readers. There were only two quotes that could be considered redundant and I believe even these quotes should be included because they convey the certainty with which Scheuer held these views. The fact Scheuer completely reversed his position after the invasion of Iraq is also an important piece of information for readers. RonCram 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is asinine. I never deleted anything for "ideological" reasons. If I had "ideological" reasons for deleting the quotes, why would I not delete two quotes that said the exact same thing? I deleted these quotes because they are redundant and because they misrepresent his book in order for you to make a WP:POINT. As for Scheuer's alleged change of position, the only person on earth who has ever commented on this is User:RonCram, and as of yet he has not authored an essay in a published source that would be notable by Wikipedia standards. This should not be a forum for your original research, Ron. Please, Ron, read the book before posting again, and see if you can figure out what his actual thesis is, rather than insisting that half this page be taken up with quotes that make a point that is tangential at best.--csloat 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, don't give me homework assignments. You claim to have read the book, you write the description. I am claiming these quotes are important because they are newsworthy, not because the quotes represent the thesis of the book. The quotes do represent what Scheuer believed at the time. All I want to do it juxtapose those quotes with his quotes after the invasion of Iraq. By doing so, we can give readers all the information they need to make their own judgments. Is there anything wrong with that? RonCram 10:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If these quotes are newsworthy, Ron, then all you need to do is cite the news articles where they are quoted. I think that is a fine standard to use, if you aren't willing to actually read the book and see what Scheuer has to say. When you say "All I want to do it juxtapose those quotes with his quotes after the invasion of Iraq" -- again, let's use the newsworthy standard. If there are articles in published sources making such a juxtaposition, then go for it! Otherwise, the juxtaposition is original research that does not belong in an encyclopedia.--csloat 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The change in Scheuer's position has been written about. This is not original research. These quotes are particularly newsworthy because they show both the amount of detail and the high confidence Scheuer had in the intelligence. You test that the quotes have to be published is a ridiculous test. Authors are quoted from their books here on wikipedia all the time. For you to try to set up a new test just to get your way is ridiculous. I have noticed in some of your comments about Scheuer that you now try to paint him as an oddball, someone who is right only some of the time. I find that amusing since you were formerly so convinced he was the wise man on the subject of bin Laden. The fact is Scheuer knew full well that bin Laden and Iraq were working together in Khartoum and the al-shifa plant. All of the old Clinton people still believe bombing the plant was the right thing to do, including Mary McCarthy who initially opposed it. The point here that readers need to know, a point that has been written about, is that Scheuer has changed his position. Wikipedia often points out changes in position in other biographical articles. There is no reason this one should be any different. RonCram 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
These have been written about by one person, a known hack, in a magazine known for distortion. The quotes are not newsworthy, but I am leaving them in minus redundancy, not because I think they are relevant, but because of your ludicrous insistence on it. I find it amusing that you think Scheuer is a crank, yet you think he is the wise man when he writes about al-Shifa, since it confirms your worldview. I also find it amusing that you are not willing to read the book yet you consider yourself an expert on it because you used the index to pull quotations out of it.--csloat 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I already removed the redundant quotes. You claim you are leaving in the non-redundant quotes in but you removed three of them. Your actions and your words do not match. I think Scheuer is a politically driven hack. He changed his view on Saddam and al-Qaeda because he perceived it to be politically expedient to do so. I mention his comment on al-Shifa to point out that he agreed with all the decision makers in the Clinton Administration. The place was a dual-use facility. No one from the Clinton Administration has changed their view on that.RonCram 18:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not that interested in what you think, as long as you stop insisting on perverting Wikipedia with your theories. Let's stick to what is actually established by authoritative sources. As for al-Shifa, your theories about its use might be relevant on that page; they really aren't relevant to this one.--csloat 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, please stop reinserting redundant quotations here. If you want to put in additional quotes from the book, it would help if you actually read it. We already have four quotes on your little pet theory about Scheuer's contradiction. We don't need three more that say the exact same thing. In fact, I propose removing the three quoted at the bottom since they are redundant and since the Joscelyn quote makes your little point just fine, and the quote above is there to establish that Scheuer did indeed write what he wrote. You still have not offered a single reason why we need 7 quotes saying the same thing, especially when it is a minor, tangential point at best in the context of his book!--csloat 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing more authoritative that Scheuer's own words. The Joscelyn quote is inadequate. It is necessary that readers see the level of conviction Scheuer has in the intelligence. It is necessary readers know the working relationship between Saddam and Osama in the area of developing CBRN. This is not a theory of mine. These are Scheuer's words and you just do not have a good reason to keep these facts from the readers of wikipedia. Each of these quotes makes a different point which makes each quote significant. I have already removed the redundant quotes. You have to get a new excuse for deleting the quotes now. RonCram 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Scheuer's words need not be repetitively quoted on a very minor point that has nothing to do with his main thesis. The only reason any of those quotes are in there is so you can prove your little theory (or Joscelyn's little theory, if you prefer). Scheuer's words on this point are already quoted at length. One quote is fine, no more are necessary; all of these quotes say the exact same thing. You are insisting on seven quotes saying the same thing. In my version we scale it back to four. I still think this is unreasonable; one quote is quite enough. On your point "It is necessary readers know the working relationship between Saddam and Osama in the area of developing CBRN" -- no it is not. This is a biography of Scheuer, not a discussion of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.--csloat 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the article is not about the main thesis of Scheuer's book. It is about the man and his views. These quotes give readers important information about his views. People are interested and want to know what the guy in charge of catching or killing bin Laden thinks about the man. They also want to know if Scheuer has changed his position and why. There is nothing more authoritative here than Scheuer's own words. Contrary to your words, I and Joscelyn are not the only people to notice that Scheuer changed his view. Thanks to Precis, we now have the Russert transcript. You truly have no NPOV excuse for opposing the inclusion of these quotes.RonCram 09:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the man and his views, we agree; the theses of his book are far more central to understanding his views than comments that are not part of that thesis. Ron, if you would read the book you would have more positive contributions to offer here. I don't have a problem quoting Scheuer, but I do have a problem with quoting him seven times saying the exact same thing, when he said many more important things than that. Can't you see this has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with accuracy? As for the transcript, I am also glad we have that, now we know that Scheuer made those 2002 comments when he had not researched Iraq, and was simply mining the open literature for information; after more thorough research of tens of thousands of documents, he reached a very different conclusion. I think this information should be included in the section rather than quotes that say the same thing.--csloat 22:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheuer "paradox"

I think this whole section is a little weird, not just the line that was appropriately removed. It is true, as some of the arguments on this discussion page attest, that there are those who only see the world as "left/right," or "pro-Bush/anti-Bush," or "pro-war/anti-war," but anyone familiar with any of Scheuer's work at all would not assume "that he is also skeptical regarding the effectiveness of military force, assassination, extraordinary rendition" as the article says -- in fact he has been outspoken in favor of extraordinary rendition, assassination, and military force. And the O'Reilly interview would make more sense if we quoted the earlier part of it, but I'm not sure how important this is to understanding Scheuer:

O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to kill babies on any day? You know what I'm talking about?
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since.

I think the "paradox" section is probably correct about OReilly and Scheuer but I just wonder if it is necessary at all. Scheuer's position is really simple -- if we really want to "win" a clash of civilizations with Islam, we're going to have to get genocidal. Recognizing that the American value system has progressed beyond the strategies of WWII, where wholesale slaughter of civilians was an acceptable way to coerce governments, Scheuer points out that we will not be able to win a war with such an enemy as al Qaeda if we insist on picking on the entire Islamic world. He sees al Qaeda as a lot easier to defeat on its own terms, but opposed the war against Iraq because it drives more and more Muslims into the al Qaeda camp. (I don't necessarily agree with his argument but I am trying to restate it in simple terms). He is not a bloodthirsty lunatic, but he is being straightforward about the fact that war on a grand scale requires shedding innocent blood. He is pointing out that a war to remake the world in our own image may not be worth the consequences.--csloat 23:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On this point, CS might be right. The conceptual idea of a "paradox" cannot be just pulled out our butts. We must find a relaible source to cite this concept to - as it pertains to MS, or else it's a WP:OR violation. Merecat 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, if Scheuer's position is that to win the war on terrorism, we have to kill so many civilians that it is not worth the consequences - please provide a quote that says that. While I have a poor opinion of Scheuer, I certainly do not want wikipedia to misrepresent his views in the least. It is my understanding that Scheuer wants the US to kill Osama and all of the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood operatives we can, but he thought it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Is that not correct? I did not write the "paradox" section and I am not committed to keeping that wording, but I think the quotes should stay. They are informative and no reason exists for removing them. RonCram 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You are misstating my position, as usual, RonCram, but it doesn't matter, because I am not insisting this paradox stuff be in the page; in fact I am advocating deleting it. Which quotes do you want to keep in this section?--csloat 21:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
How did I misstate your position? I understand that you want to delete the "paradox" section. It is my understanding you want to delete the section because you want to delete the quotes. The quotes need to stay because they accurately reflect Scheuer's position. You did not answer my question regarding Scheuer's position favoring killing Osama and other terrorists but against the war in Iraq. Is that not his position? I have not heard Scheuer take the position you claim for him and you did not provide a quote as requested. I want to keep the entire quote from the interview. RonCram 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
You misstated my claim about Scheuer's position on the gwot -- Scheuer certainly does not think the war is "not worth the consequences" as you state that I claimed. You can re-read the quote above if you like. Yes you're right he wants the US to kill Osama. Not sure about the Muslim Brotherhood; I think he would start with al Qaeda. It's not important; it has nothing to do with anything I said. I want to delete the paradox section because it is POV and because it is silly. The only quotes I deleted were the redundant ones that go over the same material already covered in one quote that is at best peripheral to the points Scheuer made in his book. If you have quotes relevant to the "Scheuer paradox," go for it, or we can use the one I included above, but the section as it is has no quotes.--csloat 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if someone can find a good general analysis of Scheuer's politics in a reputable source which can then be quoted in the article. He appears to be a complex individual who holds interesting views. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, csloat won

csloat has been asking me to find a published article that points out that Scheuer has changed his position regarding the working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I believed it was adequate to simply quote Scheuer's own words. However, I found an article that does exactly what csloat has requested. I have added a new section "Criticism of Scheuer" that includes some of Scheuer's quotes. Since I have now provided the exact entry csloat wanted, will he stay away from the delete key? RonCram 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He should. I cleaned it up a bit. I would be interested in Scheuer response to this criticism if it exists. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ron, this isn't a game to win; this is an encyclopedia. My insistence that there be published sources backing up your claims is an attempt to keep your original research off of wikipedia. I will edit the items you included for length -- there is no need for three redundant passages on this issue; the quote from Jocelyn and one from the book is plenty to establish the point -- but I will not remove legitimate claims that have been established with sources, even though in this case the source is pretty ludicrous.--csloat 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, what is ludicrous is your constant deleting of valid quotations by Scheuer himself. It is truly inexcusable. You have asked for a published report of someone criticizing Scheuer for his change of heart and I have done so. However, the published criticism makes it all the more needful to include all of Scheuer's quotes. RonCram 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you think we need five or six nine quotes referring to the exact same thing (including two copies of the same quote, twice!). What is inexcusable is you taking a tangential point out of the book and putting in more quotes on that point than on his actual thesis. What is even more inexcusable is your reason for doing this.--csloat 06:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please delete the redundacies but keep the rest as they all add perspective and additional information as we have discussed before. RonCram 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, some of the redundancy is deleted, but we still need to delete all the quotes in the second section. The one quote in the 2002 section and the quote from Joscelyn should be enough to make this silly point.--csloat 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If the CIA Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999 said in a book that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qeada, then later said there was no connection, that is pretty remarkable. If he repeated the same or similar point or points regarding this connection in his book, then that is significant too. It indicates that Scheuer found the nature of the connection worth repeating. I doubt he felt he was being silly or redundant in doing so. Perhaps his claim or claims can be stated once on the page and noted he repeated the claim or claims elsewhere in the book, with a cite to the page number. Evensong 01:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If this is so remarkable, why is it not mentioned in any news accounts except the one from Mr. Joscelyn? And even if it is remarkable, do we really need seven quotes saying the exact same thing? Have you actually read the book, Mr. Evensong? If you did, you might recall that the point Ron insists on including seven repetitive quotes about is a minor point in the book. It is not the main thesis of any chapter in the book at all. Please read the book before making further assertions about what Scheuer felt was silly. Even if he does repeat himself fifty times in the book, is that a reason we have to repeat ourselves that often in his biography page? Should this page be as long as the book? The claim is already stated once on the page and then again under "Criticism" with three further quotes. Can anyone explain why four more repetitive quotes on this point are necessary?--csloat 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not a debate society, Csloat. Your rhetorical questions are poorly placed. The only thing that matters here is fact. RonCam cited factual references from the book. He cited a factual contradictory statement from the author of said book. He has provided verification. After that, it is up to the reader to decide. Not you. Evensong 04:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Since it is obvious he changed his position, it would be incredibly valuable to find his explanation of his and included it in the criticism section. And if he never explained it we should state so explicitly -- because it just makes one wonder what's up with this guy. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The only evidence of what he now believes about Saddam and al-Qaeda that I am aware of is a one line response on an interview (already quoted in the article also). It is possible he has written more on that topic but I am not yet aware of it. The reason he never explained it is likely that this is an entirely minor point. Scheuer is not at all known for his thoughts on the alleged Saddam/AQ connection. He is known for his work on bin Laden and for his two books, as well as his continuing work on Islamist radicalism. He is not a scholar of Saddam and is not known for his work on Iraq. The only reason this is being blown out of proportion is that a single Wikipedia editor has made it his pet project to make this point significant. The only writer I am aware of who has commented on his "change of heart" is Thomas Joscelyn. If there are others, I am sure Ron would have brought them to our attention by now.--csloat 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The following might be of interest in response to LLG's question. [1] Precis 03:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Precis, thank you again for finding this link. LLG, now we have one answer as to why Scheuer changed his position. However, his answer makes no sense to me. If I had been Russert I would have asked several (but not all of) the questions I posed below. Right now we need to talk about including these quotes. Evensong has stated his view the quotes should be included in the article. Precis and LLG, what do you think? Is there a justifiable reason to keep this information from readers? RonCram 10:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather provide references to articles containing quotes (like the one by Hayes), rather than clutter the Wikipedia page with long lists of quotes. That's a far cry from keeping information from readers. Our job is to give a synopsis, with links for people who want to read more, no? Precis 10:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to say something and to say it authoritatively. It is common practice in wikipedia to list a number of significant quotes. Part of the reason for this practice is that it keeps editors from inserting POV into the article. If you want to move the quotes section to the bottom of the page, I would be fine with that. But if you are suggesting the article not have any quotes at all, I think that would be a disservice to readers. And if any quotes are included, then certainly the quotes I have put forward are worthy of inclusion. Don't you agree? RonCram 19:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
All these quotes are not significant Ron. One quote is enough to make the point. Why have seven on the same exact thing? It makes no sense. One quote, a quote from Joscelyn indicating he thinks the "change of heart" is a problem, and then a quote from Scheuer's response to Russert when confronted on the issue seems like plenty of information to me. I have read this discussion a few times now and I see Ron giving reasons for including quotes on Scheuer's 2002 view, but I see no reasons for including seven duplicate quotes. That is really what is at issue here, and it seems to be a severe distortion of my words to claim, as he does again and again, that I am trying to "censor" this information or keep it from readers. I am trying to trim redundant information here, not hide things.--csloat 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel lobby POV dispute

A number of articles have been added to the article which attack Scheuer. I feel that more context should brought into this section including around his quote on the Holocaust museum -- cherry picking a sentence from a long interview can easily be unfair especially when me makes a reference to "context" that we are unaware of. Also, as made clear in the article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Scheuer is far from alone in thinking there is a Israel lobby nor is he alone in being attacked as anti-Semitic for criticising its actions. I am not saying we remove the attacks but rather contextualize them. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The way it was before I added the actual quote was severely out of context; the claim that Scheuer believes the museum is a covert plot is just ludicrous; it's obvious hyperbole by his critics. The editor who added that treated the hyperbole as if it were accurate. I still think the critiques are ludicrous; having actually read Scheuer I have seen nothing anti-Semitic or even especially anti-Israel about his comments. He is, rather, staunchly pro-US, and his claim is that US support for Israel, fueled by the Israeli lobby in the US, is undermining US national interests. We may not agree with this claim but we don't need to pretend it is something else.--csloat 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't pretending it was something else, please assume good faith. I agree that context is important, and I've added even more. Scheuer was asked for examples of covert activity, and he responded with the Museum. I truly don't see a way to put a good spin on this. And on a different subject, some of Scheuer's "conspiracy theories" on AntiWar.com are highly embarrassing, but I'm not adding them in--this is not a witch hunt. 204.210.35.48 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Lucky wrote above:"Scheuer is far from alone in thinking there is a Israel lobby nor is he alone in being attacked as anti-Semitic for criticising its actions." I don't see what this has to do with the criticism of Scheuer's thinking on the Holocaust Museum. And by the way, many accusations of anti-Semitism relate to overplaying Jewish control, not from pointing out the existence of a rightwing Israel lobby or from criticizing it. 204.210.35.48 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need to put a "good" spin on it; I'm saying let's not spin it at all. He said what he said; there is no reason to pretend he meant that the museum is a plot. He certainly didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure if you asked him he would state that the claim is absurd. He might say that the Israeli government uses the Holocaust museum to tug on the guilt strings, but the interpretation you put in is absurd. It doesn't matter much, however; just put in the actual quotes and leave the interpretation to the reader (or to other published sources). I'm certainly not here to defend Scheuer, by the way--I think some of his statements are tactless and I find his overall position excessively militaristic -- but I think the criticism of him that is discussed on this page should reflect reliable published criticism rather than theories that constitute original research. And while this particular theory is published in a few extreme right wing sources, I don't think we need to add additional interpretation to the words that are actually spoken.
As far as Scheuer's conspiracy theories, as I said, I have read both his books (and a lot of his articles), and I don't agree that he is anti-Semitic. He is certainly critical of Likud policies in the Middle East, but to call him anti-Semitic is ludicrous. It's a label that unfortunately is tagged on anyone who criticizes Israeli policy vocally in the United States (oddly, this is not the case in Israel itself!) and even more unfortunately there are too many Americans willing to fall for it. And, having read Joscelyn's article and a few others criticizing Scheuer on this point, I disagree that the charges are about anything substantive. But, again, this is neither here nor there - I am happy to have the article represent the claims that have actually been made about Scheuer's work.
By the way, Scheuer's notability stems a lot more from his claims about the war on terror than on any of this stuff about Israel or Iraq. If you read his books, these are really minor points. The first book offers a thorough and substantive analysis of bin Laden's ideas, claims, and strategies. He rants and raves a lot, he makes some absurd analogies, and he gets some things flat-out wrong (e.g. the contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda), but his overall analysis of al-Qaeda's discourse should be required reading for anyone responsible for decision-making in the war on terror. (Well, there are more up-to-date analyses available these days, but when it was published -- 2002, though the bulk of it had been written in 2000 -- it was the only work like this available). His second book we have a thorough outline of already on wikipedia (click the link for it in the article); it is a fascinating critique of the war on terrorism that argues persuasively that the invasion of Iraq was a gift to the jihadists. That is his main argument; along the way, he has harsh criticisms of American foreign policy towards Israel, which is where these criticisms seem focused.--csloat 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope to respond to these points later, but in the meantime, you may enjoy reading the exchange between Scheuer and Joscelyn. [2] Scheuer made some good points, but it seems he has not provided substantive examples for his theory that Israel controls debate in the US. Although Scheuer didn't repudiate his Holocaust Museum example, it is not at all clear that he viewed it as a "plot", so I shouldn't have used such a loaded term. 204.210.35.48 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that. He does not reply specifically to the museum thing but he does accuse Joscelyn of "isolating a small part of my book, as well as a small part of my Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) interview that dealt with Israel, [and] failing to note the combative, baiting nature of the questions asked of me at the CFR meeting."--csloat 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conspiracy theory?

I'm not suggesting this be added to the article, but I wanted to give an example of why I find Scheuer's judgment on some matters questionable. Scheuer says that the criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt by the likes of Marvin Kalb and David Gergen and Max Boot and Alan Dershowitz is not spontaneous; rather, these men are involved in Israel's well-orchestrated covert political action (aka plot) designed to use prominent US citizens to silence debate. Unless you think I'm mischaracterizing Scheuer's words, you have to agree that this is a pretty daft conspiracy theory, no? My summary came from the following passages from [3]. Emphasis mine.

In the specific case of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, prominent pro-Israel Americans have been quick off the mark to limit the damage caused to Israel's interests caused by the paper's candor and truthfulness. From Marvin Kalb to David Gergen to Max Boot to Alan Dershowitz, these folks have brazenly defied reality by insisting there is no "Israeli Lobby" and that Mearsheimer and Walt are dead wrong, poor scholars, paranoid conspiracy peddlers, or reborn Elders of Zion. Eliot Cohen's essay in the Washington Post epitomizes the Israel-Firsters' goal of defaming Mearsheimer and Walt to convince the citizenry that they are crazy and ranting anti-Semites.
The attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer are the stuff that the dreams of political action planners are made of: The apparently spontaneous response by target-country citizens voicing all-out support for the covert-action-sponsoring country. Such a response deep-sixes any chance for a substantive debate on the issue at hand, and submerges it in a blizzard of hate speech directed at the authors from prominent Israel-Firsters, those paragons of virtue who are the chief proponents of First-Amendment-destroying laws against hate speech.
So at day's end, one can only say: Astoundingly well done, Israel, good for you! The impact of your covert political action activities in America are all that you could have hoped for: Truth is negated, dissent is suppressed, and opponents are intimidated and defamed, and all this is done by prominent U.S. citizens. 204.210.35.48 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, that is pretty classic, I think, and I see what you're saying, but I am reading this a little differently - as Scheuer saying the fact that people like Kalb, Boot, Dershowitz, and Gergen all truly believe that there is no Israeli lobby is proof of the effectiveness of Israeli covert political action in influencing the public discourse, not that those writers are all working for the Mossad to bring down America. Though it's possible that I'm being generous. I actually find Scheuer quite fun to read because while some of his stuff is dead on, some of it is definitely pretty loony. If you really want a chuckle, after you finish underlining the more outrageous parts of Imperial Hubris, then read the Acknowledgements where he thanks someone for helping to delete the "excess vitriol." But the idea that Israeli covert political action exists in the US is hardly far-fetched (considering the AIPAC spy scandal, for example, or the "art students"), nor is the notion that there is an organized political lobby attempting to influence American policy in a specifically Likudnik direction.--csloat 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A compromise interpretation:Scheuer may be saying that covert Israeli political action has convinced Kalb, Boot, et al. that they should suppress debate in order to protect Israel. (I don't think Scheuer would claim that Kalb, Boot, et al. TRULY believe that there is no lobby.) But this leaves open this question: What covert actions could Israel be taking to so influence the public discourse that it turns prominent US citizens into such agents of deception? And don't answer the Holocaust museum :) I agree completely with your last sentence. 204.210.35.48 08:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. It is mystifying to me why so many Americans support the Iraq War. Conspiracy theories offer convenient explanations, but without proof, they seem to me, well, to borrow your term, loony.

Another thought. Let's suppose it has been verified that Israeli covert action has effectively influenced public discourse. Even then Scheuer's theory is problematic, for the following reason. Some people are immune or resistant to the covert action, e.g., Scheuer himself, Juan Cole, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hitchens, etc., as they have no qualms about criticizing Israel. So their response to Mearsheimer and Walt can be considered spontaneous, i.e., self-generated. But there could exist PRO-Israel writers who are similarly immune or resistant to Israeli manipulation, so their responses could also be spontaneous. Scheuer seems to be assuming that's not the case with prominent US citizens Kalb, Boot, Dershowitz, and Gergen, but since he'd have no way of knowing who is immune, he must be assuming that NO pro-Israel writer could be immune. I summarize this way of thinking as follows: A: Israel has altered public discourse in its favor. B: Prove it. A: Are you pro or anti Israel? B: I'm pro-Israel. A: You see? 204.210.35.48 12:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your interpretation is more reasonable than mine. And I agree with you about conspiracy theory -- there likely is covert action by Israel here, but there is no reason to assume it would be any more effective than, say, U.S. covert action in Iraq. The media are diverse enough that people who are willing to do the homework can figure things out even when there is overt manipulation. In general I think conspiracy theory reasoning is faulty but it often sets up non-falsifiable arguments like this. As far as your question - what covert action could Israel be doing - obviously if I knew the answer, it wouldn't be so covert :) But we do know about this sort of thing, and I would not be surprised to learn about journalists on Mossad's payroll (probably not hired to write outright lies but rather to tell the truth as they see it). But a lot is probably more subtle -- a former Israeli intel officer runs MEMRI, which is a primary source for translated broadcasts from the Arab world. They don't make stuff up, but they pick and choose what to put out there to portray the Arab world in an entirely one-dimensional fashion. MEMRI is routinely read by folks in the US media, and there are not other sources of such information that are as easy to work with. I'm not suggesting it's a "plot," but it certainly is an effective way to influence the U.S. media.--csloat 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Cleanup is Needed

This article is fairly hard to digest in its current form. Is there some way it can be reorganized and make more succint without dulling either his views or the criticism of his views? Alan Dershowitz's article is quite good even though he has made a number of controversial statements and has written controversial books. Another article to look at his Norman Finkelstein. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the articles are available online, put a link under "References." RonCram 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to the wikipedia entries for those two individuals as models of good organization and coverage of controversial individuals. I think we are misunderstanding each other. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
One place to start is to eliminate the three quotes from Scheuer replicating the one quote in the 2002 section; a sentence from Joscelyn is really all we need to make the point Ron is so insistent upon. The quotes in the 2002 and 2004 sections pretty much establish the point; I don't see why we still need four quotes on the exact same thing (trimmed down from nine, including two that were duplicated exactly).-csloat 22:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The quotes need a LOT of trimming, and I agree with LLG about integrating criticism. A positive review of Imperial Hubris should be inserted to balance out the negative one. Aside: I think the Dershowitz page could be improved, e.g., there is a section of references for the Chomsky debate, but nothing in the article itself about Chomsky (unlike the case with Finkelstein).Precis 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitism

The National Review quote is kind of funny, and it illustrates the nature of some of the ridicule Scheuer received. However, I'm having second thoughts about including it, for the following reasons: (1) In the minds of some, the quote, however oblique, could associate him with anti-semitism (2) The quote conflates antisemitic speech and antisemitic mindset. To illustrate, several have detected anti-semitic overtones in M&W's working paper, but very few have labeled M&W as anti-semites themselves. For another example, Tony Judt wrote an article in 2003 favoring a binational solution to the mideast crisis. If he truly believes that is best for Israel, he cannot be called antisemitic; however, many feel that his article is effectively anti-semitic because of the harm they see coming to Jews living in a state with Islamic majority. Unless someone objects, I'll replace the National Review quote with a less inflammatory one. One further comment: It seems to me this stuff belongs in the Criticism section, since it came before the Israel Lobby article and is not only about the lobby. Precis 20:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (got a username, not trying to be covert :)

Hmm... I'm not sure about replacing the quote, but I'll let him more expicit critics comment on that -- it is important not to whitewash articles. Also, I am not sure what WP guidelines say to do but I find its best to integrate criticism into the article rather than having it as a separate section. I think that in general finding a balance between describing the target and providing information on the target's critics is very difficult. I find that balance is achieved based on the size and distribution of opinions in the self-selected population of Wikipedians watching the article in question. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osama-Saddam connection

From Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You've talked about Iraq being a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, that you said the invasion of Iraq was not a pre-emption, it was an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat. But I want to bring you to an interview you had on Tuesday on "Hardball" where you said, "The only part of [the case for the war in Iraq] that I know about is that I happened to do the research on links between al Qaeda and Iraq." Question: "And what did you come up with?" Scheuer: "Nothing."

If you go back and read your first book, "Through Enemies' Eyes," you seem to lay out a pretty strong case of connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Let me show you page 190: "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq."

This week's new Weekly Standard lays out this one: "There's information showing that in '93-94, bin Laden began" working "with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] capability."

And this: "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons ... and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden."

MR. SCHEUER: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: So you saw a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

MR. SCHEUER: I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in terms of a relationship--in the terms of a relationship...

MR. RUSSERT: But your book did point out some contacts?

MR. SCHEUER: Certainly it was available in the open-source material, yes, sir.


Precis, thank you for providing this transcript. Could you provide a link so we can read the rest of the interview? I had hoped that Scheuer had appeared on Meet the Press because I thought Russert might have read some of Scheuer's quotes back to him. Unfortunately, Russert seemed to not have any followup questions. Here are a few followup questions Russert could have asked:
  • How it is the CIA operative in charge of catching bin Laden in the 1990s is not familiar with the CIA classified archives until after 2003? How could that be?
  • How is the open source material - articles in newspapers around the world, Milan, Paris, London, Moscow - all separately report similar events with different details about the cooperative relationship?
  • How is it these open sources can have information regarding a working relationship between Saddam and Osama and the CIA classified archives do not? What does that say about the thoroughness and competence of the CIA? Didn't the CIA followup on these open source stories to find out if they were true?
  • What information were you referring to when you wrote "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development." Weren't you writing about classified information that tied both Osama and Iraq to the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory the Clinton Administration bombed in 1998?
  • According to the 9/11 Commission Report, every Clinton official involved in the decision to bomb al-Shifa was still convinced it was the right decision - even after an NSC review of the CIA classified intelligence and analysis performed in April, 2000. Even Mary O. McCarthy agreed by 2000 and she and Richard Clarke signed the memo to Berger. Are you now disagreeing with the Clinton Administration regarding the bombing of al-Shifa?
  • What happened to the classified material regarding al-Shifa that linked Saddam and Osama? Shouldn't that material still be in the CIA archives?
Unfortunately, it appears Russert was not as interested in this topic as conservatives would be. RonCram 08:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd provided a link to the interview earlier, at 3:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC). Here is a link to a rather sneering response by Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard. [4] It should suffice to refer to quotes there rather than clutter the Wikipedia page with quotes. Precis 09:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Precis, I have read the Hayes article and I think I linked the Hayes article onto the page. Hayes has the luxury of being able to sneer. Since he is not writing for an encyclopedia, he can share his POV. I was not able to find the Russert transcript the article mentions, so thank you for finding it. Unlike csloat, I do not have access to Lexis-Nexis. I agree that keeping a page concise is an important goal and improves readability and accessibility. Quotes are sometimes the most authoritative and reliable source. To improve readability, perhaps the "Quotes" section should be moved to the bottom of the page. What do you think? RonCram 10:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ron about moving the quotes to the bottom of the page. I also have to acknowledge that I was not aware of the Russert interview or this snivelingeering Hayes piece before reading this discussion. My proposition is that we have a quote from Joscelyn and a quote from Scheuer's interview, and perhaps a note that Hayes found Scheuer's answer "highly unlikely." Personally, I think Scheuer's explanation is not unreasonable under the circumstances, but I would suggest to Ron that if he thinks Scheuer's response all those questions are important, send them to Scheuer and see what he has to say. Of course that would be original research, but if Ron would like to publish Scheuer's response to such an interview in a reputable source (or even in the Weekly Standard), it may find its way into Wikipedia.--csloat 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have again restored the quotes deleted by csloat. Csloat has repeatedly deleted quotes that appear to be inconsistent with his anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War POV. (People can read csloats' blog here and judge for themselves: http://www.shockandblog.com) Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view. Readers should be exposed to all relevant sourced information and be allowed to reach their own conclusions. --Mr j galt 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, galt. I wish there was an easy way to have wikipedia return the number of times you've mentioned my blog in order to disparage my contributions to wikipedia, in spite of what is clearly stated at WP:NPA. As I have said over and over, my blog is barely read by anyone but you and TDC. And it hasn't been updated for months. What does it have to do with any of this? I am just trying to reduce the redundance on this page. It seems to be a reasonable concern, and you have not once offered a reason that seven quotes repeating a minor tangential point are necessary when one (or four!!) will do. This is truly asinine.--csloat 10:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] csloat deleting quotes

Csloat has repeatedly deleted quotes that appear to be inconsistent with his anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War POV.

If you were to add seven repetitive anti-war quotes, he'd remove those too. POV is irrelevant. Precis 09:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are also csloat, how could you possibly know? I can only base my comments on what I have actually seen. Csloat has repeatedly deleted quotes that appear to be inconsistent with his anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War POV. (People can read csloats' blog here and judge for themselves: http://www.shockandblog.com) --Mr j galt 13:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I added several strongly anti-Scheuer quotes and he didn't remove them. I surmise that's because I didn't repeat myself. Don't feel bad that you missed this, a person can't be aware of everything. I'm glad I was able to set you straight. A simply apology to csloat should now suffice to make amends, methinks, if you're so inclined. Precis 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Precis, for paying closer attention than galt or others who keep waving my blog around as if it invalidates my wikipedia contributions. I suppose I should be grateful to galt for advertising my blog; without his frequent citing of it here, he would probably be the only person who reads it regularly. In any case, thanks.--csloat 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes are not redundant (for the most part)

Here is the analysis of the quotes I posted earlier:

  • [Bin Laden] "made a connection with Iraq's intelligence service through its Khartoum station." (p. 119)
    "In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." (p. 124)
    "There is information showing that in the 1993-1994 period bin Laden began to work with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a CBRN capability for al Qaeda." (p. 124)
    "Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted, was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear [CBRN] weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin al-Khalq." (p. 184)
    "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the FSU (former Soviet Union) states and has sought and received help from Iraq." (p. 190)
    "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development." (p. 192)

Here are the separate points Scheuer made in each of these quotes:

  • Osama was connected to Iraq's intelligence service
    Osama wanted CBRN and sought it in cooperation with Sudan and Iraq. He made contact with Hijazi and the relationship "flourished" in the late 1990s.
    (Not much new in the third quote)
    Osama trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam. This quote shows Scheuer believed in an operational relationship between Saddam and Osama.
    Osama sought nukes from former Soviet Union and Iraq provided the introductions. This shows Scheuer's belief the operational relationship including providing introductions to more powerful weapons providers.
    (Not much new in the final quote)

Of the six quotes initially offered, I have removed two for being redundant. The other four all make separate points that are important and will be interesting to readers. RonCram 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to summarize each one of the 4 or 6 quotes and put the full quotes in the footnotes? To be honest, it's very hard to follow all these quotes in the text. --CSTAR 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ron, all of these quotes establish the same thing -- that Saddam and Osama cooperated over CBRN. The details about the Soviet Union or training camps are not relevant to your point or to Scheuer's views. You have also left out the other three quotes that are there on the bottom of the page. So we have nine quotes total that you want to include here; apparently you are only willing to back off on two of them, leaving seven, all to establish a point that has not been seen as important by anyone except the writers at the Weekly Standard. This is just insane. And on top of it, you seem not to want to include Scheuer's own explanation for the "change of heart". My proposal: one quote from Scheuer on Saddam-Osama connection in 2002, one quote from Joscelyn noting the change and criticizing Scheuer, one quote from Scheuer explaining the reason for the change. That's really the extent of the notability of this issue.--csloat 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
csloat, the three quotes at the bottom of the page are not being discussed. You have already accepted those quotes. The quotes being discussed all establish different facts, as I noted above. It is amusing to see you write that Scheuer's view is not relevant to Scheuer's view. And why are you asserting you understand my point better than I do? Contraary to your statement, the point that Scheuer has changed his view has been noted by Tim Russert as well as Weekly Standard. Regarding Scheuer's explanation for his change of heart, it is obviously untrue (as I demonstrated with my questions above). But I am not trying to put that in the article, so why are you bringing that up now? Your proposal is inadequate. Scheuer believed Osama and Saddam connected through the Iraqi Intelligence service (a relationship that flourished), cooperated on CBRN (al-Shifa), cooperated on training terrorists at terrorist camps in Iraq (Salman Pak) and then Saddam's regime introduced Osama to former states of the Soviet Union in an attempt to get them nukes. Each of these views of Scheuer is different. The quotes are not redundant. There is no reason to censor these views from wikipedia readers.RonCram 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ron, I hav e never accepted the three quotes at the bottom; I am just trying to cover one thing at a time but I have said over and over that they should be deleted as well. Why do you need to put in seven or nine quotes that say the same thing? I said the only people who feel Scheuer's change is important are the WS writers -- Russert has clearly asked about it too but he got a reasonable response and left it at that. Your claim that Scheuer's explanation is "obviously untrue" is ludicrous -- that is your opinion, which is fine, but not encyclopedic. Scheuer likely is a better judge of his motives than RonCram. These views are redundant as they all speak to Saddam's contacts with Osama, which is the reason you put this crap in here in the first place. I am only arguing for keeping quotes that are representative. Having nine quotes on the Saddam-Osama connection makes it seem as if that is what Scheuer wrote about most -- which is clearly incorrect. Finally, I must ask you for the fifteenth or so time to please stop whining that this is censorship. It has nothing to do with censorship. The question is not whether this view should be put in at all but rather whether it should be put in nine times. Good day.--csloat 00:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OK let's keep this civil. I was kindly asked by RonCram to look at this page. Though I am clearly not a neutral party, I am a complete outsider about the controversy here in the writing of this article.
Csloat is it really necessary to say '''stop whining that this is censorship''' in boldface to boot?
I also notice that not all the references are footnoted. We should try to properly footnote them all. One other thing: I think we should avoid a common fallacy on wikipedia: the belief that by reordering paragraphs somebody is going to look better or worse to a casual reader. That was fine for political commissars in the Soviet Union, but has no place here.--CSTAR 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


My apologies to Ron if that seemed uncivil; I am a little frustrated about being called a "censor" every time I insist upon having only one, rather than seven, quotes that say the same thing. I am an American by birth and I was brought up with a strong belief in this country's constitution and its ideals. As both of my parents were immigrants from repressive dictatorships, I was especially inculcated with a respect for the First Amendment. One of the things I do currently is teach a course in Freedom of Speech at the university level. I am passionate about the topic, and I consider myself a firm believer in the free exchange of ideas. So I do take the charge a bit personally; again, my apologies if I seemed to be lashing out. I just don't know how many more times I should have to ask nicely that Ron stop calling me a censor as a way of politicizing this discussion.
I agree with the need to footnote references consistently. I am not sure I understand the issue of reordering the paragraphs as it affects this page; though I agree that changes to wikipedia should not be made on the basis of whether they make people look better or worse - the goal should be to accurately describe the notability of the subject matter with reference to authoritative sources.--csloat 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't singling you out for this criticism. I can give lots of examples of other WP contributors.--CSTAR 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's start at the beginning

What does this mean:

He is currently a News Analyst for CBS News as well as a Terrorism Analyst for the Jamestown Foundation's "Global Terrorism Analysis"

Does it mean "Global Terrorism Analysis" group or bulletin? The sentence as it stands seems nonsensical to me. I note that he appears on the page of terrorism analysts.--CSTAR 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good fix; thanks.-csloat 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence needs a better source for the fact of authorship of the first work (The Boston Phoenix is not a great source). There is no reference to support authorship of the second work. Find it or I'll remove it.

Scheuer is the anonymous author responsible for Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the earlier anonymous work Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. :--CSTAR 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand ... do you doubt that Scheuer is the author of those works? It's pretty well-established; Scheuer has acknowledged it, and nobody that I am aware of has ever questioned that in a published source.--csloat 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No I suppose I believe it, but it's part of the process to document everything.--CSTAR 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Also I best to use as much as possible original news sources. --CSTAR 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I went to Amazon to see what I could learn about the authorship of the books. Amazon lists Scheuer as the author of both books, but evidently both were originally published anonymously. There were two interesting points I saw. Newt Gingrinch wrote a favorable review of Through Our Enemies Eyes writing:
This is a remarkable book well worth reading by anyone who wants to know how dangerous our opponents are and how difficult the war with terrorism could get. The author is described as "a senior U.S. intelligence officer with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia." He was forced to publish the book anonymously because it is so different from the pre-September 11 analysis of his employing agency.[5]
An editorial review of the paperback version has this to say: "Written by an anonymous member of the U.S. intelligence community using sources previously unexploited."[6] I thought this might be helpful to others. It was helpful to me because I did not realize the first book was anonymous when first published.RonCram 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I still haven't been able to find an original newspaper source for the authorship of he second book, but it is widely known and acknowledged.--CSTAR 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ron, no offense, but the reason you did not realize that is that you refuse to actually read that book. That is the same book you want seven (or nine) repetitive quotes from that all say the same thing. Why is it you refuse to read it, yet you insist on having several quotes from it even though they are redundant?
As for news articles on his authorship, there was a lot of news coverage in fall 2004 in which he was identified as the author of both books, though people "in the know" were well that he was the author before that. Here's an article that names him as the author of both. For Imperial Hubris this article should do the trick.--csloat 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit

The article now reads like a hit piece. I assume the quotes are factual and I have nothing against the quotes somewhere in the article, but more perspective is needed in the intro about who this guy is. --CSTAR 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops it's now re-reverted. Argh.--CSTAR 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The other thing I notice is that there are a lot of quotes from interviews etc.. It seems like a depositary of quotes.. That may be inevitable, but is there some way some of this might not be distilled?--CSTAR 01:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly some people have some very nasty things to say about this guy and if notable, should be documented in the article. But it's different to say "X says Y is nasty" and "Y is nasty". (THere are formal logics that deal with those kinds of statements by the way).--CSTAR 01:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bin Laden quotes section

COuld all those quotes be preceded by some reason why they're there? The claim is presumably that Scheuer believed there was an Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection. If the quotes are non-representative, or are taken out of context, somebody sooner or later will point that out. For now, I'm concerned only about readability of the article and right now, it's a confusing mess.--CSTAR 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a confusing mess. Here are my thoughts. I did not want to limit Scheuer's views on bin Laden to the Saddam relationship issue because I thot Scheuer may hold other interesting views on bin Laden readers would want to know about. However, the relationship issue is certainly very much in the news, due in part to the release of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. Personally, I would like to see more information about Scheuer's life (if we can learn anything of note), then a section on his writings, including the historical context of the two books along with a brief description of the books' theses (I have asked csloat to write the books' theses section since he claims to have read them, but have not seen it yet). Possibly a section on "TV Interviews." Then a "Criticism" section followed by a "Quotes" section on different subjects of interest to readers. And finally, the "Reference" section. Does that sound reasonable? RonCram 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable. Although getting near the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents for me is a daunting task and I have already seen divergent interpretations of what's in them.
However, I propose that you begin with the rewrite as you suggested. However, please wait a bit to see if anybody else including user:csloat has objections. It's best if I try to take a critical view but stay out of the writing entirely except for very minor edits or reverts of vandalism.
The quotes section is currently incomprehensible. I suggest you write a summary which will probably be counterbalanced by input from others including user:csloat.--CSTAR 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is my problem: these quotes are not "out of context" in the sense of distorting the conclusion. Scheuer did clearly believe there were contacts between Osama and Saddam in the mid- to late- 1990s. However, they are "out of context" in the sense that they are tangential to Scheuer's actual thesis. The book is not an investigation of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda. It is an analysis of the public discourse available on al Qaeda's ideology and strategy. It is an exploration of the bin Laden phenomenon and its implications for U.S. security. Scheuer's comments on Saddam and al Qaeda are at best a side issue in the book. My biggest problem with all this is that Ron insists on having more quotes documenting this Saddam/AQ thing -- essentially every word that addresses this issue in the book -- included on this page than quotes documenting Scheuer's actual thesis in the book.
To respond to Ron's comments above, first, he never asked me to write a section of anything. While I would love to expand this article with sections on such things, every time I look at the page, Ron has re-added these redundant quotes, and I get sucked into writing long explanations of why such quotes don't belong here, rather than doing something productive on the page. Meanwhile, he shows no evidence of having read these explanations (much less the actual books) and then reverts, like he just recently did tonight. Take a look at the quotes he wants to include. One of them is word for word a quote that is already elsewhere on the page. The others all repeat the same basic point -- that Saddam worked with al Qaeda in 1994 and later on CBRN (chem, bio, radiological, and nuclear) weapons. There is already another quote saying that in the disputed section; do we really need three more? Taken together, these quotes represent almost every word Scheuer wrote on the subject! Do we really need more than one quote to establish something that obvious?--csloat 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well let's worry about the number of quotes later. Could you write a summary of the book, based on quotes from the book? It should be documented very specifically from the text.--CSTAR 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
PS that's a tall order, I know.--CSTAR 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Guys, I'm going to sleep. If you kill each other, make sure I don't find out.--CSTAR 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a tall order; I've given it a start. I think we could eliminate the "Views" section completely if we could flesh out the sections on the books a little more. Then there should be a section on his more recent published work. The various quotes can be integrated into the section on works.--csloat 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --CSTAR 14:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, just to set the record straight, I did ask you to write a section on the thesis of the Scheuer's book on two occasions. See my entries to the Talk page on 10:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) and 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC). RonCram 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK fine, but let's concentrate on fixing this now. I'll look at this several times a day and try to make some comments. I think we definitely need a section related to the controversial quotes. Whatever their merits, they need to be presented in a clear manner with reasons as to why they are important to critics of Scheuer.--CSTAR 14:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What makes a quote "controversial"? RonCram's say-so? Or published accounts? I prefer the latter standard. And I don't see why we should need or want seven quotes that say the same thing.--csloat 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly it's published accounts which make them controversial. The quote is controversial if it is relevant to support some criticism published from a "reputable" source. That's what I meant by they need to be presented in a clear manner with reasons as to why they are important to critics of Scheuer. Yes, critics writing opinions in the Weekly Standard in this regard should be considered, provided they can be documented. And surely, somebody on the left has already responded to it so someone will eventually put that in as well.
Re And I don't see why we should need or want seven quotes that same thing. I agree. That's why I asked Ron to write a summary of these quotes. As far as I am concerned he can put 700 quotes in footnotes. The number is less important than the clarity of the text.
However, the final form of the article will be hopefully different from what it is now.--CSTAR 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
PS could you please try to be a little less confrontational (e.g., avoid phrases such as "don't tell me what to do"). I give Ron credit for asking me to help here, even though we are at completely different points on the political spectrum. I'm regarding this task as refereeing a math article. You need proofs or references.--CSTAR 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I will try; as you can see, Ron sometimes can be exasperating. This whole thing started with his WP:NOR; after months of pressing him to cite a published source backing up the use of these quotes, he finally found one, and then acted like he was doing me a favor by bringing it in (see the section "OK, csloat won"). I am trying to continue assuming good faith but sometimes his actions come across as disingenuous; but I will try to keep everything civil. I have no problem with your standard for quotes, although I disagree that "somebody on the left has already responded" -- Scheuer would probably be offended at being characterized as a "leftist"; he certainly is not one. However, he himself has responded to the accusations as Precis has pointed out. I am glad we are agreed that seven quotes making the same point are unnecessary. Though I don't agree with using the footnotes to store redundant quotes either -- one quote on each main point is fine, methinks. Elaboration in the footnotes is fine, but why do we want seven repetitive quotes there?--csloat 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
CSTAR, the reason I want the quotes is that it prevents csloat from saying Scheuer did not say these things when the quotes are there for everyone to read. A simple summary of the content of the quotes would normally be fine. It is my experience in dealing with csloat as an editor that he makes me want to insist on the quotes. However, if csloat would agree not to twist the summary of Scheuer's views, I might agree to a fewer number. But if csloat insists that Scheuer never changed his viewpoint on the issue or that Scheuer never said these things, I will have to insist on the quotes again. I have been through this with you before csloat. At one time he agreed to stop deleting well-sourced material and I agreed to stop complaining about his censorship. But then he started up again. RonCram 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, both CSTAR and I would like to have the article with all of the material under question available. Will you not revert during this rewrite please? If one quote does appear elsewhere in the article, you may remove that particular quote. RonCram

Ron, please don't tell me what to do. I removed the redundant quotes and rewrote that section. If you plan to introduce these redundant quotes again, we need to talk about why you think they are necessary. Thanks.--csloat 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
csloat, your actions do not help bring concensus. Both CSTAR and I have asked for the quotes to remain in the article during the rewrite. Yet you have reverted us both repeatedly. These quotes do not all say the same thing. Each of them addresses a different aspect of the relationship of Saddam and Osama, the extent of that relationship and the confidence Scheuer had in the intelligence. You have not demonstrated how these are "all the same thing." RonCram 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure anyone but you wants these repetitive quotes in the article for now Ron. Let's leave them out until we can discover a reason for actually including them. They do not address a different aspect of the relationship; they all address connections through Sudan based on public source material. This has all been discussed already.--csloat 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
csloat, you can tell CSTAR wants the quotes because he reverted your revert to get to the version that had all the quotes. Yet you reverted CSTAR again. RonCram 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't particularly want the quotes. I just wanted a stable version of the article to start with which included all the quotes. Ron, I would like to see some reason given in the text why all these quotes are there. Most of the quotes seem non-problematic in regards to alleged consistency or inconsistency of Scheuer's position then with his stated positions now, except of course the last one Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN). Would you agree? Unfortunately, I blocked Csloat (see below) so he won't be able to respond right away. --CSTAR 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I also wanted a stable version of the article that included all the quotes. I never deleted anything. The minor additions I made were not intended to disrupt but to add new info. Regarding your question, all of the quotes from 2002 are problematic for Scheuer's current view. Since 2004, Scheuer has said he found no evidence in the CIA archives of a relationship between Saddam and Osama. Yet the CIA archives contain intel about the link reported in the Senate Select Committee's Report on Pre-War Intelligence. The Senate Report noted cooperation in two important areas: 1) an offer of safehaven in Iraq for Osama and other members of al-Qaeda and 2)training of al-Qaeda operatives in the use of CBRN. You can read these and other conclusions of the Senate Report on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page. Other CIA classified intel includes information on al-Shifa, (a dual use chemical weapons/pharmaceutical factory). William Cohen testified that the CIA characterized the classified intel on al-Shifa as "the best it gets." You can read about this on the Operation Infinite Reach page. In 2002, Scheuer said the relationship began in 1994 and "flourished" in the late 90s. Without reasonable doubt, this is a conclusion that is based on the CIA's classified intel. In 2002, Scheuer made several comments about Osama and Saddam cooperating on CBRN - comments that may have included both the al-Shifa factory and the training of al-Qaeda operatives in the handling and use of CBRN mentioned above - both areas the CIA is known to have significant intel. Scheuer also said the Iraqis introduced Osama to the former Soviet states in order to try to buy nukes. (According to one report, Osama did make a purchase but the Ukranians, or whoever it was, sold them fake nukes. But there is no indication the Iraqis knew the nukes were not operable.) Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions but, based on Scheuer's presentation of other CIA declassified intel, my guess is the CIA archives have intel reports that confirm the nukes story. It is difficult to understand how Scheuer could say there is no evidence in the CIA archives about facts that the public knows is in those archives. Perhaps Scheuer is trying to say there is nothing more in the archives that has not been declassified. But that interpretation, while generous to Scheuer, does not explain why Scheuer would have changed his view regarding the existence and extent of cooperation between Saddam and Osama. By the way, the extent of the relationship is a key point. The 9/11 Commission said there was "no operational relationship." The Senate Report uses similar language. I believe the key point in using this language is that there is a lack of evidence regarding cooperation on any particular terrorist attack. However, it is difficult for me to understand how training in CBRN, joint development of chemical weapons and offers of safehaven do not constitute "an operational relationship." It is clear Scheuer saw a fully formed relationship that cooperated on many levels in 2002 and no relationship at all in 2004. RonCram 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: all of the quotes from 2002 are problematic for Scheuer's current view. I'm sorry I don't see that at all. For example take the first two quotes in that section:
  1. "In 1993 Osama bin Laden began speaking in detail to Muslim and Western journalists about his beliefs, goals, and intentions, and began publishing commentaries on these matters in the media.... While bin Laden's words have not been a torrent, they are plentiful, carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the Unites States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it."
  2. "Bin Laden, of course, learned his military skills in Afghanistan, not on the Iran-Iraq border, and, as a result, his methodological approach to waging jihad is marked by a measured manner stressing patience, preparation, and professionalism." (p. 71).
I don't discern any real difference between the ideas expressed in these two quotes here and the current views as expressed in the interview posted at CFA which you sent me earlier. Quite frankly, how could any sane informed person disagree with them? Am I missing something?
You are however drawing a conclusion (whether it's valid or not is a separate matter) from the CIA archives [that] contain intel about the link reported in the Senate Select Committee's Report on Pre-War Intelligence. The conclusion (or at least one of them) is the following assertion:
"Since 2004, Scheuer has said he found no evidence in the CIA archives of a relationship between Saddam and Osama."
To support this conclusion, you refer me to the wikipedia page on the Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection. Unfortunately, this is a very long article in typical WP style with lots of conflicting points and which I haven't yet digested. However, that rationale for inclusion of the quotes seems to disappear.
I think you understand that I'm not trying to make a point about Scheuer; I simply want to look at the logic and the claims of the article and see if it all connects. The claim you are making seems to rest on some other facts, not the Scheuer quotes from 2002, as best I can see.
Though, I really don't care whether the quotes are in or not, I still really don't see why you do want to include them.--CSTAR 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Further thoughts
In conclusion, if you think the quotes are necessary (or informative enough to merit inclusion) then by all means include them. My own preference is not to include them, but I'll leave the editorial decision for inclusion of these quotes up to you. To illustrate my reasons for why I think it's a bad idea, may I suggest you look at a very protracted (and bitter) disgreement I had here: Talk:quantum indeterminacy#Extensive quotes over somebody's insistence in including very large numbers of direct quotes in that article. Though this situation is arguably different (political science, not physisc), some of the justification is similar.
If you decide to include the quotes, however, I don't think you can draw the conclusion that they show an inconsistency with his current thinking except of course for the last quote. There is another issue which you should be aware of and that is somebody might claim that this is original research, in violation of the WP:NOR policy. So you might want to support that claim by a documented reference (for example, the Weekly Standard article) with a appropriate disclaimer: It has been argued that blah.. --CSTAR 14:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, I am sorry I was unclear. In my mind, we were only discussing the quotes csloat was deleting from the 2002 book. The quotes were deleted from two sections. Let me list them for you:

From the Quotes section, csloat deleted these:

There is information showing that in the 1993-1994 period bin Laden began to work with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a CBRN capability for al Qaeda. Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 124)
Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted, was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear [CBRN] weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin al-Khalq. Through Our Enemies' Eyes (p. 184)
We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development. Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 192)

In the "Criticism of Scheuer" section, csloat (or someone) deleted certain quotes Joscelyn noted in his article when criticizing Scheuer for changing his view:

Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear (CBRN) weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK). The first group of bin Laden's fighters is reported to have been sent to the MEK camps in June 1998; MEK cadre also were then providing technical and military training for Taliban forces and running the Taliban's anti-Iran propaganda.
Other laboratory and production facilities available to bin Laden are reported in the Khowst and Jalalabad areas, and in the Khartoum suburb of Kubar. The latter facility is said to be a "new chemical and bacteriological factory" cooperatively built by Sudan, bin Laden, and Iraq, and may be one of several in Sudan. In January 1999, Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that by late 1998, "Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinating in the field of chemical weapons." The reports say that several chemical factories were built in Sudan. They were financed by bin Laden and supervised by Iraqi experts.
In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the FSU [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq.

Regarding the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, I was only directing your attention to the conclusions of the Senate Report which are produced on that page. The page, as a whole, is badly POV and in need of a rewrite. However, the conclusions of the Senate Report show that the CIA has significant intel supporting the position Scheuer held in 2002. This is important because when Tim Russert questioned Scheuer on why he changed his mind, Scheuer said it was because the CIA archives did not support a relationship. This is simply untrue. In addition to the Senate Report, further CIA intel was made public because of Operation Infinite Reach which clearly showed Iraq, Sudan and al-Qaeda cooperating in chemical weapons development. William Cohen, testifying before the 9/11 Commission, said the CIA presented this intel as "as good as it gets" in terms of high level of confidence analysts had in the intel.

I want to include these quotes to make it clear Scheuer held this position in 2002. Most readers are only familiar with Scheuer's 2004 position in which he says there was never any evidence of a link between Saddam and Osama. I also want to make clear that the CIA archives are full of information about the link, contrary to Scheuer’s stated reason for changing his view. I realize I cannot state this in the article as a conclusion or it will be called “original research.” However, there is no problem with presenting all of the facts which clearly show the CIA has plenty of intel about the link in the archives.RonCram 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to 'Further Thoughts' I read through the discussion you had on indeterminacy and I have to admit that generally speaking encyclopedia articles are better without extensive quotes. (As an aside, I am not a physicist but I have enjoyed reading some on Einstein and Feynmann in the past. Someday perhaps we can chat on the subject of physics.) The only reason I wanted extensive quotes was so editors with their own POV would not twist any summary of the quote content to their own purposes. I have no wish to twist Scheuer's words, I only want to present what he has said in the historical context in which he said it. Others have discussed Scheuer's change of position (Joscelyn and Russert), so there should be no problem with the article pointing that out. RonCram 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the above speaks for itself. It simply isn't a valid reason to include the quotes -- to preempt arguments by other editors. The quotes should show something notable about the author's thinking. I feel that one quote on Scheuer's beliefs about the Saddam/Osama relation is plenty; it shows where he stood in 2002, and nobody has tried to deny that. Also, Ron is simply incorrect that most people are familiar only with Scheuer's claim that there is no Saddam/OBL connection -- if you read Imperial Hubris (his 2004 book), he doesn't even make that claim in there. He only makes it on a television interview, once. It is not a notable part of his perspective except for the fact that some people have noticed a contradiction. I don't disagree with having evidence of that in the essay, but to foreground that as the central dispute about Scheuer is WP:NOR of the worst kind.--csloat 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found another interesting Scheuer quote

This one relates to the very important issue of the level of certainty required before intelligence is considered actionable. I think we need to find a place for this somewhere in the article.

QUESTIONER: ...I’d like to know what you would do if you were in control of the levers of power in the military and policy.

SCHEUER: I would not wait for the level of intelligence that we had during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. We were used to intelligence at times that was 80 [percent] or 70 percent certain in knowing what they were up to, or the plans they had. Against this enemy, we’re going to be extraordinarily lucky if we ever get to a 40 percent assurance level. So what I would do if I was in charge is I would not, as the National Security Council did in the “90s, say the intelligence isn’t good enough, because we’re only 30 [percent] or 40 percent certain. That’s the way it’s going to be on a transnational threat—not only against terrorism, but against proliferation and against narcotics. It’s much more difficult to get a degree of assurance—degree of confidence in intelligence against a transnational issue than it was against the nation-state. So I would act on less certain intelligence, sir. [7] RonCram 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ron, the quote is interesting, but single quotes like this are notoriously difficult to evaluate. I have no idea what he said before or what he said after.--CSTAR 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
CSTAR, I would expect the article to provide a link to the interview as I did above. Scheuer did not say anything after because it was the end of the interview. One of the key battleground issues among the intelligence community is the level of confidence before action is taken. I thought it was very interesting that Scheuer spoke to the issue publicly. RonCram 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't the last question/response cycle in that interview, although the last response (which followed) didn't alter the gyst of the one you included. But note that he did say things earlier which suggest that his positions are more nuanced; some may argue that they are contradictory, but I take a very narrow, logical view of what constitutes a contradictory viewpoint. But it is clear (as csloat pointed out somewhere in response to something I said) that this guy's not clearly identifiable (**The following piece of text was deleted inadvertently. Restoring it for clarity. Here is the diff file:[8]**) on the political spectrum.--CSTAR 03:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right. There was a followup question I forgot about. You and csloat are both correct that he does not appear to be the flat-out anti-Bush political hack that Larry C. Johnson is. I have had to modify my view on that point. However, some of Scheuer's comments make me wonder about his ability to think logically. I think he suffers from intellectual hubris. But I should not point fingers since I sometimes suffer from that myself. RonCram 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ron, we're all walking on very thin ice here. Please don't use the word "hack", which is clearly derogatory, in a discussion in which people of different political beliefs are taking part. --CSTAR 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, I am sorry if I offended you. I can certainly respect people of different political viewpoints. To me a political hack is someone willing to act illegally or unethically to advance a political cause. That is my opinion of Larry Johnson and several other CIA folks who have acted illegally or unethically to damage President Bush. I did not call a fellow editor a "hack." Is it your position that I cannot express my opinion of people in the news who are not members of the wikipedia community? RonCram 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Is it your position that I cannot express my opinion of people in the news who are not members of the wikipedia community?. No, you are certainly entitled to opinions, and to express them. However, injecting them here serves no purpose, I don't think. Particularly, since the purpose of a Talk page is to discuss issues (e.g., facts, statements, style) relevant to writing the article. Opinions about motivations or ethics of other public individuals I don't think is relevant.--16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ron, unless you know the guy personally, such comments about his character are beyond the pale. There is simply no evidence to justify such a claim. Johnson still considers himself a conservative Republican, for one thing. In any case I am curious about how you have changed your position on Scheuer -- do you no longer believe he is part of a conspiracy with George Tenet to bring down America? If that is the case, I am glad to hear it.--csloat 17:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The crux of Scheuer's argument

Found an interesting piece by Scheuer in which he talks about the "crux of my argument." I believe this could help inform the article's presentation of the thesis of his books. [9] RonCram 16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A good find, Ron. And a quote from here is more useful and relevant than the one you cited above. In general, however, we are looking for ways to pare down the number of quotes in the article. I agree with the idea of bringing in quotes that are central to his thesis but I don't like the idea of making this a repository for quotes, especially when some users are just seeking out quotes for WP:POINT and WP:NOR reasons.--csloat 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of 3RR

csloat has reverted four times today: 00:48 1 May, 5:40 1 May, 6:06 1 May and 15:55 1 May. He has done this while two editors are asking that all of the information be available during this rewrite. In addition, it is reported that he has reverted four times on the Larry C. Johnson article today as well. RonCram 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These are the diff files; it's not clear to me that these are indeed reverts, particularly since a lot of editing was going on in between.
  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
wikipedia:3RR

--CSTAR 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

CSLOAT is blocked for 12 hours.--CSTAR 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This seemed to me to be the least ambiguous course of action. Of course, the block should be regarded by nobody as a vindication.--CSTAR 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted you to be able to see all of the pertinent quotes at the same time. Now I am working on the wikiquote page for Scheuer. Perhaps a good selection of quotes on wikiquote will prevent editors from twisting Scheuer's words or twisting any summary of Scheuer's views. I did not know you were an admin CSTAR. When I asked you to look at the article, I thot I was just talking to a level-headed editor who might help me create a better article. I have been blocked for violating 3RR in the past, so the blocking of csloat changes nothing in my mind.RonCram 22:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

  • Re Although Scheuer was an overt member of the CIA,
Was he really an overt member while he was employed by the CIA?
  • Re not much is known about his personal history.
Is this true or we just haven't been able to find anything.--CSTAR 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Scheuer was an analyst, not a field agent. As such, he was not covert. However, I think it may be better to say he was an analyst rather than using the word "overt." Regarding his personal history, I have looked and not found much. That's not to say we can't find it. I plan to keep looking and I hope others do too. I have found some interesting stuff while looking for personal history info. RonCram 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheuer's response to critical article in Weekly Standard

I thot this worth posting here.

Just a quick note to correct two point in Mr. [Hinderaker's] article. First, there was no classified information in either of my books, Imperial Hubris and Through Our Enemies' Eyes. The Agency reviewed every line of both books and found nothing classified. More important, I intended then and intend now to abide by the secrecy agreement I signed at the start of my CIA career in 1982 and binds me now.
Second, it is true that the Agency under Mr. Tenet allowed me to be interviewed about my book Imperial Hubris as long as the book was MISINTERPRETED to be an all-out attack on the Bush Administration. In fact, the book mentions Mr. Bush -- or Mr. Clinton, for that matter - very few times, and underlines that my opposition to the Iraq war is based on it breaking the back of the U.S. effort to eliminate al-Qaeda and my personal aversion to offensive wars of choice. Imperial Hubris is overwhelmingly focused on how the last several American presidents have been very ill-served by the senior leaders of the Intelligence Community. Indeed, I resigned from an Agency I love in order to publicly damn the feckless 9/11 Commission, which failed to find any personal failure or negiligence among Intelligence Community leaders even though dozens of serving officers provided the commisioners with clear documentary evidence of that faiure.
If the book became part of the presidential election campaign in 2004 it was because Mr. Tenet and his lieutenants delayed its publication so long that it appeared on the eve of the opening of the Democratic Convention --the mansucript was submitted for the regulation 30-day review period on 5 January, 2004 -- and because they forbid me from talking to the media once I began, in interviews, to make it clear that the book was not an attack on President Bush, but rather on Mr. Tenet and his senior colleagues.
As always, I appreciate the Weekly Standard's interest in my work.
Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer. [14]

RonCram 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheuer in Foreign Policy

Lots of interesting quotes in [15]. --64.230.127.33 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From upper Midwest?

When you hear him talk, you notice that he has an upper Midwest accent. Where is he from? Illinois? Michigan? Minnesota? Wisconsin? -Amit

[edit] Excessive Quotes

This many quotes belong in Wikiquote, not in the article. As is article looks more like collection of quotes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

These quotes have been discussed over a long period of time and this version of the article represents an established consensus. If you would like to summarize some of them that might be helpful but simply deleting the ones you don't like is not helpful. Thanks.--csloat 20:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It does not really matter how long these quotes have been discussed. Its extremely poor form to have so many of them in here. It's not an article, just a collection of losely related quotations. They should be re-written into a condensed paragraph form. Until that happens, I am moving them to Wikiquote. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It is poor form to only take out the quotes that you don't like. The ones you took out are important as they summarize his two main books. I can leave or take the OBL quotes but as you know there was a pretty vehement debate over those. If you want to summarize some in paragraph form that might be useful, but simply deleting them is not tolerable.--csloat 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not takingout quotes "I dont like", I am taking out all of them when thats all that comprises a paticular section of the article and moving them to Wikiquote where they belong. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are lying again. You took out quotes from sections on his two books that accurately summarize the books. You took out entire sections on his views on OBL that were entered after a serious and involved discussion. I think you are just messing around and I'd like you to cut it out.--csloat 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This cannot be called an article if it consist of little more than block quotes. I hope you dont wonder why people think the articles you contribute heavily to look so terrible. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have something to offer the page, please do so; otherwise your "contributions" are not helpful. Stop insulting me.--csloat 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

another promise to move to wikiquote by TDC I check the wikiquote page and none of the quotes are there. I agree with TDC tenitevly on this one, some of the quotes should be moved. Travb (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? My problem with TDCs actions here is not with his suggestion that some quotes be moved, but rather with his blanking of parts of the page, without moving the quotes, and without replacing them with summaries or useful information. The net result is vandalism -- he blanked out entire sections of the page so it looked like all Scheuer wrote about was the Israel lobby, when in fact that is a miniscule part of his work. TDC seems to have followed me to this page with the intention of disrupting it to annoy me rather than to improve Wikipedia in any meaningful way. I am all for a dialogue about eliminating some of these quotes - I think, for example, that the entire section on OBL in 2002 and 2004 would be better situated in wikiquote.--csloat 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

In my opinion (as I have mentioned many times), an article should not consist of a series of long quotes. A writing style with long quotes is very hard to read. To provide balance to this article, however, either one of you (preferably Torturous Devastating Cudgel who removed the quotes) or csloat can briefly summarize or paraphrase the deleted quotes. Please keep in mind, that you are writing an article, not preparing political talking points.--CSTAR 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please csloat, could you tone down your language? Both of you please keep in mind the WP:3RR. --CSTAR 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite of the quotes into coherent summaries is preferable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, feel free to offer rewrites. Blanking out information you don't like is not rewriting.--csloat 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
CSTAR I'm not sure where my language was offensive but I apologize. I am minding the 3RR but I believe TDC is gaming it; he has several intentionally provocative reverts spaced one and two days apart with little in the way of explanation.--csloat 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Your quote You are lying again. --CSTAR 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was making a statement that appears to be accurate. I'll try not to jump to such conclusions but it is difficult when dealing with an editor who has shown nothing but hostility to me, and whom I have caught in several lies before.--csloat 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I gave all the explanation I need to justify the removal of the quotes, they belong in and currently reside in Wikiquote. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That is not enough to justify the removal of the quotes. It would be enough to justify an honest rewrite that summarized some of the quotes, but that does not seem to be your goal at all. Thus any page blanking will be reverted; under the circumstances it is barely distinguishable from vandalism, your wikilawyering on the issue is besides the point.--csloat 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well hop to the re-write, I'll give you a day or two. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I have not suggested that a re-write is all that desirable; you did. I've asked you before to stop giving me orders. I have better things to do than "hop to" orders given to me by a known wikipedia troll.--csloat 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You are unwilling to re-write them and I think that side from having dubious relavence, they are totaly unencyclopedic. So I suppose I shall remove them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to issue ultimatums. --CSTAR 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TDC to a great extent. However, a few quotes are justifiable. I would suggest keeping the quotes that describe the theses of his two books. Books have a great deal of content and future editors may decide that certain content is more important than the article's stated thesis. By allowing Scheuer to speak for himself on the theses of his books, it will lead to greater stability of the article. Quotes on his views are not necessary to keep as they can be found on wikiquote. RonCram 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern about quotes is readability. However, I am not in favor of omitting summaries of Scheuer's statements which are currently included as direct quotes. --CSTAR 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
TDC should indicate what quotes he would like changed and we can deal with them one by one. Or he should write summaries himself and make the changes. Vandalizing the page and demanding that others do the work is not helpful to anyone, and I think he is just trolling here.--csloat 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Change all the quotes to paragraph form summaries. Every single one, except mabey one or two. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Do it yourself if you think this is worth doing, but do not hold the page hostage and order others to do it. Why are you here TDC? Have you ever even read Michael Scheuer's work? Either of his books? Do you have some sudden expertise in this topic? Or did you just stalk me here hoping to annoy me, after your phony RfC flopped?--csloat 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yikes, somone is a bit salty today! Tell me, how many other articles have secitons comprised of nothing more than quotes? Its an encyclopedia, not your blog, please try and treat it as such. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop bringing up my blog as it has nothing to do with this. If you want to add commentary to the quotes please do so in a NPOV manner; but stop deleting things just because they are quotes. I find it interesting that, other than calling me "salty," you refuse to respond to the questions -- what is your interest and expertise in Mr. Scheuer's work? Did you even read either of his books?--csloat 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Michael_Scheuer Imperial_Hubris hubris David_Corn Michael_Isikoff

Michael_Scheuer

"Imperial_Hubris":

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror".

hubris

David_Corn

Michael_Isikoff

< http://davidcorn.com >:

"Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War".

Hopiakuta 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classified status

The article says:

Scheuer was an analyst at the CIA, not a covert field agent.

Is this the same situation as Valerie Plame? Did both of them have "classified" status? Or is there some difference between their statuses that our readers might be interested in? --Uncle Ed 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Plame was a covert agent; Scheuer was not. He was an analyst; his status was not classified. He published his books as "Anonymous" because of an agreement to do so in his CIA contract, not because his job was classified.--csloat 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised edition of TOEE

In the revised edition of "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" published this year, Scheuer includes (pp. 134-137) discussion his earlier references to the Iraq-bin Laden "connection", and how he decided that they were mistaken. Having no dog in the edit fight, I'm not going to try to summarize them for the article, but certainly one of the more interested parties should have a look and add something. --Carmelbuck 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That probably makes you better suited to add this info. I am taking a look right now; looks like Scheuer was part of a thorough reassessment of all the links claimed by the Feith report that was ordered by Tenet and that he changed his mind because he was persuaded by the preponderance of evidence (as were the others at CIA who went through this stuff). This is pretty noteworthy information. csloat 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Scheuer_494b.html"