Saturday, November 2, 2013

They Hate Us for Our French Fries

This is a fascinating exchange between Michael Scheuer on the one hand, and first, Rep. Peter King, and second Rep. Chris Stewart on the other.  All statements attributed to the participants are paraphrased; the entire video is nine minutes and worth the watch.

The exchange with Peter King was as expected – King was all about supporting Israel.  Scheuer offered that if the US wants to support Israel, fine – but be honest with the American people that this is one main reason why we are shedding blood and bankrupting the country.

In the exchange with Stewart, two interesting threads are worth noting. 

First, Stewart asks Scheuer if there are a large number of analysts within the CIA that hold views similar to Scheuer’s.  Scheuer suggests that only a fool would believe the wars and attacks are for the reasons parroted by the politicians and he didn’t work with fools.  Stewart presses – how many believe as Scheuer believes?

This was the fascinating part – Scheuer said that it isn’t any of the congressman’s business – he isn’t going to turn this into a McCarthy witch hunt.

At first my reaction was that Scheuer is going a bit overboard here.  What would it hurt to say that others believe as he does, and it is a large number?

As I thought about it….

There is obviously a vested interest in the official narrative.  That vested interest is threatened by reasoned analysis to the contrary – both in their desire for future continuation of the narrative and for the impact on the revisionist history as the truth is slowly revealed. 

Those with vested interest in the official narrative have clearly demonstrated that human life is of no value if it stands in the way of the narrative.  Certainly, careers in the CIA are not safe in this case.

It is for this reason that Scheuer pushed back so vociferously.  It is credit to my naïveté that it didn’t strike me immediately.

Next, Stewart asked for the reasons why the US and US interests are attacked by extremists, in order.  Scheuer replied as follows (again, paraphrased):

1)      Our support for tyranny for over 50 years in the Muslim world
2)      Our presence on the Arab peninsula
3)      Our support for the Israelis
4)      Our ability for a long time to get oil at below market prices
5)      Our military presence in other countries in the Muslim world
6)      Our abiding willingness to identify as terrorists any Muslim population that our allies dislikes

Stewart didn’t like this at all.  He replied with the official narrative: They are motivated by their absolute hatred of the United States – freedom, democracy, women’s rights.

Scheuer: They hate them; they are not going to die for them.

Stewart went nutty as he couldn’t stand this reply, to which Scheuer finally replied “Bullshit, sir.”  (That is a direct quote!)

Now, this entire dialogue – and even the entire narrative – can be resolved rather easily, it seems to me.  The NSA has gathered uncountable trillions of communications from around the world.  The CIA has agents – if the hints given by Scheuer are accurate, of which I have every reason to believe – that know the facts.

But the official narrative cannot stand the truth.  For this reason, Scheuer knew better than I did not to take one step into the quagmire leading to witch hunts (which in any case will come, and may even be occurring given the high profile changes and dismissals of many in the military and intelligence world for what seem to be trivial reasons).  And congress and those at the highest levels of the executive branch don’t want the truth to get in the way of the official narrative.

Now, after I write all of this, I sit back and think – well, of course BM; you already know they can’t stand the truth.  I guess what is interesting to me is that this video demonstrates the passion and hatred brought out when the truth is spoken by someone who obviously has the credibility, as Scheuer certainly does.

So, they hate us for our french fries.


  1. BM,

    Truly it is about oil and goes back to WWI etc, but before WWI Russia was the largest produce of petroleum, still is I believe. But the Russians have one card up their sleeve - abiotic oil which the Western geological fraternity pointedly refuse to believe - abiotic oil that is.

    I wonder what the politics would be when we realise that underfoot all of our coal and gas deposits might exist unimaginable volumes of petroleum seeping upwards via deep fracture systems to the surface. The Arabs would prefer we not go down that road for obvious reasons. So too the Russians. And the locking up of potential oil producing ground with parks and environmental reserves, plus the CO2 emission policy, is this all about distracting us from discovering these potentially unlimited reserves of abiotic petroleum underfoot under most countries?

    1. Louis, I think it is about control and not oil. I have commented on this a couple of times before, for example:

      They want control over people - the single-most valuable commercial and economic resource on the planet.

    2. Your right about control.Its always about control.
      Liberals make the knee jerk reaction that its about the money.They
      have all the wine, women,yachts,houses,and a printing machine at uncle Ben's house for gods sake!!So why do they want more?
      There priest hood requires tithes.