Michael Scheuer responded to me taking him to task for calling Richard Clarke and FBI Agent John O’Neill the “authors of 9-11”. He did not recant. We exchanged three sets of email, which was copied to a group of intel officers I correspond with on a regular basis. Scheuer asked me not to post his responses. However, I will summarize the thrust of his remarks and provide the responses I sent him:
SCHEUER’S FIRST RESPONSE:
Scheuer suggests that my op-ed from the summer of 2001 showed that I didn’t understand terrorism and reiterated his claim that Clarke and O’Neill were not interested in protecting Americans through preemption.
AND, MY RESPONSE TO MIKEY:
Michael,
As is typical of your tenure at the CIA, you don’t do your research properly. I was the one who directed Jeff Gerth of the NY Times, way back in 1995, to look at this guy Bin Laden. His August 1995 story in the NY Times was the result of that. You can’t find one thing I have ever written where I said we should ignore Bin Laden. In fact, go back and read the November 7, 2000 op-ed that Milt Bearden and I wrote. We clearly identified Bin Laden as THE threat that the next President would have to confront. So shove that up your ass.
What most outsiders don’t know is that your initial assignment to CTC was not because you were such a “stellar” analyst. EUR was’t keen to keep you around because of your limitations. As you should recall, CTC was a dumping ground for analysts who couldn’t cut it in the front line units. You obviously brought those same mediocre talents you honed in EUR to the task of finding Bin Laden.
While I’m not a big fan of Richard Clarke or John O’Neill, you are way out of line writing that they were the “authors” of 9-11. Are you really that deluded or are you simply a vicious little prick? O’Neill is dead and can’t defend himself. I suspect Clarke considers you not worthy of a second thought. You are an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis.
You owe Clarke and the family of O’Neill an apology.
Always happy to chat with you.
Larry Johnson
SCHEUER’S WROTE BACK:
Osama bin-Laden
He said I was trying to paint Bin Laden as a media creation and that I was not interested, ever, in protecting America first.
MY RESPONSE:
Michael,
Let’s start with intelligence officers I respect–Paul Pillar, Mel Goodman, Ray McGovern, George Allen, Pat Lang, Dale Ackels, and George Laing. You know what’s fascinating about that group–every one served in the military. Unlike you, they actually put on a uniform and went to war zones to serve their country. Every single one, like me, believe first and foremost in protecting America. The difference between us and you is that we have an understanding of reality. In your rich little fantasy world, it is only Mikey Scheuer who sees the truth. But you need to come to grips with your own inadequacies and personal failures. At the outset of your career at CIA you were not considered qualified to be selected to the Career Trainee program. Only a select group of folks were accepted into the CT program. Your mediocrity continued after you switched to the Counter Terrorism Center. You made no effort to learn Arabic and immerse yourself in the culture of the people you were supposed to find, fix, and finish. Let’s face it, you’re the Salieri of intelligence analysts.
Guys I know and respect say that as a person, you’re a nice guy. Out of your depth, but a nice guy. I am beginning to question that. Your rage against Clarke and O’Neill is really puzzling. Unlike you, I’ve worked in both policy and intelligence parts of government. I coordinated from the State Department side the FBI investigation of Pan Am 103. I have also spent the last 12 years working with U.S. military special operations forces. What I have learned is that every organization thinks they are the only ones who can get a job done but, in truth, we need an integration of effort and the talents of all.
Yet, you blame Clarke and O’Neill for 9-11. In case you were asleep during 2001, Richard Clarke presented President Bush a detailed action plan of things that needed to be done to go after Bin Laden. His plan reflected the frustration he felt that the Clinton Administration had not done enough. George Bush responded by demoting Clarke, by ignoring the August PDB, and by failing to convene a meeting to address US counter terrorism policy until September 10th. Clarke was trying to get something done and was ignored. O’Neill had left the FBI and had started a job at the World Trade Center, where he died on September 11th. Your disgusting attack on these men is cowardly. And the next time I see you I will call you a coward to your face.
Your tendency to embellish and fabricate is on display in your most recent response to me. I don’t know where you are getting this nonsense about “spiders, lawn mowers” etc. I would challenge you to provide the reference and quote but won’t waste your time because I have never said nor written such a thing. What I wrote in the summer of 2001 is that nuclear proliferation is a greater threat than terrorism. I still think that is true. I never said terrorism was not a threat or should be ignored. It speaks volumes about your limited intellect that you are reduced to repeating rightwing talking points rather than address the substance of what I have said and written.
Finally, as far as incompetence is concerned, take a good look in the mirror. The face staring back at you is the quintessential picture of incompetence.
Larry Johnson
THE FINAL EXCHANGE:
Scheuer accuses me of being a cowardly Democrat and sticks by his criticism of Clarke and O’Neill.
AND MY FINAL WORD:
Michael,
I know nothing of “moral cowardice” since I’m still a registered Republican. But here again we see the true Michael Scheuer on display–obsessed with red herrings, unable to see the big picture, and prone to just making shit up. The fact that some of your analysis on Iraq is accurate simply reflects the old saying about blind squirrels finding nuts once in a while. My anger with Bush started when he stood idly by while his underlings outed an undercover CIA officer, Valerie Wilson, who was a member of my CT class. If you would pull your head out of your ass for a second and look at the names of some of the folks on this intel distribution list you would see Patrick Lang, Gary Berntsen, Milt Bearden, Jack McCavitt, Jim Smith, Marc Sageman and Bill Wagner. All were field ops officers who are not known as Democratic activists of any sort.
I have no trouble with fair criticism and accurate analysis, but your shitty little piece in the Washington Times is outrageous. When you claim that Richard Clarke and John O’Neill are the “authors” of 9-11 you eliminate any credibilty you may have had as an expert. If you were just some homeless guy sitting around in a dumpster fondling himself your comment would deserve no attention whatsoever. However, because of your experience you know better than to claim a lie as truth. Unfortunately, this modus operandi is your signature. You are sloppy in your writing and thinking. You are a parochial extremist with limited experience in the real world. You spent so much time as a Government bureaucrat working in only one institution that you have no real appreciation for working in an interagency environment much less the real world. Your failure to get Bin Laden is part of the reason that he was still around to help direct 9-11. Your screw up, however, does not make you the author of 9-11. It just means you are not very competent.
Now that you are bereft of senior analysts to review your writing and tighten up your analysis, we’re getting a great look at the factors that kept you from advancing in EUR and inspired you to seek refuge in CTC. Your blanket accusation that Democrats are segregationists, socialists, and cowards is, unfortunately, another sign of how immature and childish your world view is. Just when I think you’ve said the most stupid thing you could, you surpass yourself. Who would have thought that you are completely incapable of accurately describing history. As I recall it was Harry Truman, a Democrat from my hometown, who desegregated the military. It was a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the Voting Rights Act. I would also note that there are far more Democrats in Congress who have served in the military than Republicans.
I am not respectfully yours. I respect nothing about you. I pity you.
Larry Johnson
