Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – I have this most interesting post here from Michael Scheuer at Nonintervention.com: “Pity poor America: Obama, Romney, and Foreign Policy.” This is new Scheuer, just posted. I really think, though, as long as this essay is, that if you really want to grasp it, you have to read the whole thing. There might be a couple of paragraphs that you can leave out. Michael Scheuer, if you don’t know, headed up the CIA’s bin Laden unit. He tracked, chased, and hunted down Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 2001 and was actually the man that was in a position to take bin Laden out when Bill Clinton was asked whether or not he wanted to issue the order and declined on at least two occasions. Check out the rest in today’s transcript…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: I have this most interesting post here from Michael Scheuer at Nonintervention.com: “Pity poor America: Obama, Romney, and Foreign Policy.” This is new Scheuer, just posted. I really think, though, as long as this essay is, that if you really want to grasp it, you have to read the whole thing. There might be a couple of paragraphs that you can leave out. Michael Scheuer, if you don’t know, headed up the CIA’s bin Laden unit. He tracked, chased, and hunted down Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 2001 and was actually the man that was in a position to take bin Laden out when Bill Clinton was asked whether or not he wanted to issue the order and declined on at least two occasions. Scheuer was a career guy at the CIA, in other words, not some blogger sitting out there that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s still connected with international affairs and keeps up on all these events. Someone sent me this yesterday and I read it. He posted it on October the 13th. It took me about 20 minutes. There are just some amazing things that I did not know in Scheuer’s piece. He starts off like this:
This Tuesday’s Romney-Obama foreign-policy debate will again show Americans that both political parties mean to maintain the lie that has kept the United States losing the war al-Qaeda and its allies declared on us in 1996. There will seem to be debate during the debate, but at day’s end there will be no difference between Romney and Obama: America is “exceptional,” and exceptionally entitled to intervene in other people’s affairs; what we do in the world is well-intentioned and benign; and Islamist militants are attacked us because they hate freedom, liberty, and Budweiser. In other words, both men will implicitly tell Americans that their government will not recognize the seriousness of our war with the Islamists, let alone that we are losing that war – hands down.
Mike: Did you hear that, people? We are losing that war hands down. Listen to his critique of President Obama. This goes out to all you that continually assail this radio program and its most kind, benevolent, gracious, and humble host for not hating on Barack Obama enough.
On Obama’s part, he is likely to continue being the simple ideologue he has been since taking office. He will continue to operate in his own world, one in which there is no room for genuine religious belief and motivation unless it comes from the mouth of a half-baked, fiercely anti-American Chicago cleric. [Mike: He’s talking about Reverend Wright.] Obama and his Chicago political pals are supposed to be savvy and slick politicians and yet they are so ideologically blinded by their view of what the world should be that they have not – in four years – bothered to read polls that show that more than 75 percent of the world’s Muslims view U.S. foreign policy as either a threat to Islam or a plan aimed at destroying the faith. To add to this staggering problem for the United States, polling also shows that this interpretation is shared by men and women, young and old, and those who self-identify as moderates and militants.
Mike: Isn’t that interesting? Because today’s leaders can’t possibly understand religious conviction in the serious sense of the word, they cannot fathom that your average jihadi Muslim is doing what he’s doing for religious reason. It’s not for the religious reason that the decepticon has been promoting, and tries to promote on this show, and successfully promotes the rest of the day on this channel. It is for the reasons that the Islamists and Muslims feel that the United States is out to squash their way of life. This is what Scheuer lays out here in unabashed terms that you’re not going to hear anywhere else.
Confronted by this reality, Obama and his oh-so-smart Ivy League crowd continue to insist that, from the attacks in Saudi Arabia in 1995, to the 1996 destruction of our embassies in East Africa, to the near sinking of the USS Cole in 2000, to the massive U.S. defeat on 9/11, to the bipartisan decision to lose the Afghan and Iraq wars, to the recent, easily predictable mujahedin victory in Benghazi . . .
Mike: How do you like that, AG? Scheuer calls what happened in Benghazi a mujahedin victory. We’re arguing over what the president knew, what he said and when he said it, and someone finally lays it out in stark, realist terms. This was a victory for the mujahedin. Did you see about how the story is now beginning to percolate, that the reason the embassy was attacked in Libya was because those lunatics that are now trying to govern in Libya are trying to chase us and the rest of the Western world out?
AG: Yeah. That’s the headline, at least last night, on FoxNews.com. That’s what they were leading with.
Mike: It was an interesting story, and it dovetails perfectly with Scheuer’s take on all this. Back to Michael Scheuer writing at Nonintervention.com:
…to the rent, easily predictable mujahedin victory in Benghazi, America has faced only a limited number of militants, criminals, nihilists, and madmen – non-legitimate Muslims – who can be killed one man at a time to achieve victory. Is it really possible that the tiny crew of misfits Obama and his team have identified as America’s enemies have been able to cause so many shameful U.S. defeats and, in the face of a superpower attacking them, to have – since 9/11 – established fully viable bases outside South Asia in East Africa, Yemen, West Africa, Palestine, and Iraq.
In the coming debate, Obama will no doubt brag that he killed Osama bin Laden. Well good, about time, well done! But what has he done to stop the spread of militant Islam and its armed forces across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa? This is a presence that now sits directly on sea lanes vital to the United States in the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, and is nearing oil reserves and deposits of uranium and other strategic minerals in West Africa that are indispensable to the U.S. and Western economic. Obama has done nothing but lie to Americans about the genuine religious motivation, numbers, and growing armed strength – thanks to his policy facilitated arsenal-looting in Libya, Egypt, and Syria – of al-Qaeda and its allies. At the end of Obama’s term, America is far weaker militarily and far more vulnerable to Islamist power than it was when he took office.
And in foreign policy, Romney will be no better. Amazingly, Romney has surrounded himself with the same brain-dead, Israel-first Neoconservative cabal that brought on the war we lost in Iraq and which made bin Laden’s defensive jihad self-perpetuating, the latter proven by the continuing post-bin-Laden geographical spread of war-making Islamist organizations, Islamist-controlled states, and Islamist-caused violence.
Mike: Listen to this. I’m reading from Michael Scheuer at Nonintervention.com today. Here is some reality and fact we’re going to have to deal with here, folks. Scheuer lays it out on the line.
Listen to the media and hear Bolton, Krauthammer, Hannity, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Keane, Lieberman, and the crazed war boys Graham and McCain mouth exactly the same America-defeating nonsense spouted by Obama, Rice, Brennan, and Mrs. Clinton and their acolytes at MSNBC and the mainstream media: Muslims hate America and the West because of their freedom and liberties, gender equality, freedom of speech, and elections.
Whenever you find prominent political, media figures, and professors using this description of the Islamists’ motivation, you will find America’s truest enemies, men and women who want to continue an interventionist foreign policy and so are deliberately providing Americans with an enormous underestimation of the growing threat the Islamists’ pose. These are the men and women who are happy to get any number of American soldiers, Marines, intelligence and security officers, and ambassadors killed so they can keep trying to force Muslims by bayonet to abandon their faith, vote, abort, blaspheme, Zionize, feminize, and generally become pagans just like us. [Mike: Boy, that’s laying it out on the line.]
So cock a non-partisan ear toward the Obama-Romney debate and hear the same worldview and foreign policy prescription presented by both men, although – thankfully – Romney will not be spouting Obama’s Islamist-abetting nonsense about Islam being benign even when it perceives itself under attack. When you clear your way through all the spurious hot air about “American exceptionalism” and “a world eager for U.S. leadership,” you will hear the ardent desire of two men, two parties, and almost all of the media to maintain and even increase the cultural and military interventionism in the Muslim world that has killed so many Americans at home and abroad in the past sixteen years; which has brought the United States numerous, shameful military defeats; and which has created nothing but the prospect of an ever larger and more costly war with much of Islam in the year ahead – a war which no American should be confident his / her country will win as long as the current bipartisan worldview prevails.
And there are perhaps two things to think about after the debate. First, notwithstanding what you hear from Obama and Romney, their followers, and the media on this issue, the fact will remain that (a) most Muslims do not hate Americans for their way of life, but do believe that the Islamic faith and Islamic civilization are under attack by Washington’s – and its Western allies’ – foreign policy and, for that reason (b) most loathe the U.S. government and judge the last Osama bin Laden to have been a “good Muslim,” who, despite methods of war-making unacceptable to many Muslims, steadfastly defended his faith against the genuine threat posed by unrelenting Western intervention in an era when “Muslim regimes” not only would not resist but actually enabled that intervention.
Second, Americans are faced with a war with the Islamists they cannot avoid and must win. [Mike: Those of you that want a war, you’re going to get one.] The United States is losing at the moment, and the talk of large cuts in the defense budget is merely campaign drivel. The way the defense budget is spent may change – more Marines and soldiers and fewer submarines, for example – but the last four U.S. presidents have created an environment in which we face war at every turn. Whoever is elected, defense spending will grow, probably starting with a U.S.-led intervention in Syria and a war on Iran.
[Mike: Here are Scheuer’s suggestions on how to cope.] Accept reality. Interventionist foreign policy is an aggressive action that – like every aggressive action – earns an aggressive reaction; this is a lesson Americans learn in the grade-school yard but which is erased at university and by politicians and the media.
We are at war with an increasing portion of the Muslim world, and that world’s fighters are motivated by what we do in the Muslim world and not by what we think or how we behave at home. This is a religious war from our enemies’ perspective, and that is the fact on which Americans must base their analysis and their government’s actions.
Mike: Michael, you’re not going to get that as long as we have the media types out there chortling on about Muslims wanting to come over here and snuff out our way of life, stop us from drinking Budweiser or Coors Light or whatever the case may be, and end the NFL. We’ve got to stop women from voting, don’t you know? I ask the question on this show rhetorically of some of these people that lust after these wars and never-ending interventions: Why don’t the Muslims want to kill the Swiss? Why don’t the Muslims want to kill the Australians? Why aren’t the Muslims going after the Canadians? That’s the point that Scheuer is making here. I want you to hear the conclusion.
The choice we face is hard but not complex. If maintaining the current slate of foreign policies in the Muslim world is essential to U.S. security, then we must maintain it and begin to kill far more of the Islamist enemy and its civilian supporters than we ever have before. [Mike: That’s just a messy – who wants to get involved in that? Kill more civilians?] The mujahedin will not get tired and go away, and given the nature of their religious motivation they will stay in the field and their numbers will grow unless we destroy enough of them and their kith, kin, physical assets, and infrastructure to convince them the game is not worth the candle. [Mike: In other words, like I said, you’re going to have to have a 10-million-man army and you’re going to have to go over there and invade the entire Middle East and start mowing down hundreds of thousands of these people wherever you find them. Of course, there are many people in decepticon circles that are perfectly comfy with this.] If this is an unappetizing prospect, we can combine more effective, sustained, and lethal military action with a decision to begin to reign in the unnecessary aspects of our bipartisan interventionism…
Mike: You know the lady that called yesterday in the last hour of the show, AG? What was her name, Amy from New York? She asked the question, “Mike, what can we do about this?” I said the first thing you’ve got to do is stop making the problem worse. Stop the intervention. Recall what you’ve already done. I don’t know that there’s any way you can repair the damage that’s been done. You’re going to have to defend against those people that want retribution for the things we’ve already done. You can stop creating future tragedies and future military excursions and insurgencies that you’re going to have to put down. That’s what Scheuer is saying here.
If this is an unappetizing prospect, we can combine more effective, sustained, and lethal military action with a decision to begin to reign in the unnecessary aspects of our bipartisan interventionism which now make sure the Islamists are successfully recruiting in the next Muslim generation. We can move toward energy self-sufficiency, and thus begin to curtail our ties to the Sunni tyrannies on the Arab Peninsula. We can end Washington’s feckless and war-causing campaign to spread secular democracy and women’s rights in the Muslim world; secularism at this point in history is a clear no-go in the Muslim world, and commonsense dictates that no U.S. Marine should die so Mrs. Muhammed can vote, vamp, and abort. We can wish Israel and Palestine well, stop taking calls from either, let them fight out the war they love until one prevails, and begin to clean up the corruption in the American political system wrought by the U.S.-citizen supporters of each and such organizations as AIPAC and CAIR.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Great piece on foreign affairs. How do we get past the media and political biases and simply educate America on this non-intervention policy?