Lost credibility with you… why? Because you didn’t agree with him? Kind of arrogant.

Jimmy Liberty on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM

It was because of the way he said it. Not arrognance on my part. Arrognace on his.

O’Reilly had Scheuer on his show to talk about Al Qaeda (alongside a Stratfor guy) and said these were the two best people you could talk to on the subject.

O’Reilly is not the guy to be bringing up for this topic. I don’t look to him for my news.

I’m not blaming him. I’m simply calling in to question his “expertise,” re: Al Qaeda.

O’Reilly had Scheuer on his show to talk about Al Qaeda (alongside a Stratfor guy) and said these were the two best people you could talk to on the subject.

PowWow on January 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Lost credibility with you… why? Because you didn’t agree with him? Kind of arrogant.

I’m not blaming him. I’m simply calling in to question his “expertise,” re: Al Qaeda.

Five wannabe jihadi wanksters from Lackawanna get close enough to UBL to stick a shiv in his jugular-if they had been so inclined. I don’t know, but to me it sounds like they might have a little bit more insight into how the big dog operates than someone whose agency found penetrating Al Qaeda to be a more elusive quest than searching for the Holy Grail.

That was a brilliant interview! And Maher was only briefly taken aback by the Israel bit, but agreed with the other 90% of what Scheuer (and Ron Paul) says.

Drum on January 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM

That was a striking example of cognitive dissonance. He agrees with Ron Paul’s isolationism so he shouldn’t have been surprised about Michael Scheur’s disdain for Israel.

PowWow on January 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM

That was a brilliant interview! And Maher was only briefly taken aback by the Israel bit, but agreed with the other 90% of what Scheuer (and Ron Paul) says.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Scheuer was never able to get that close in all of his super-duper years of Qaeda sleuthing, n’est-ce pas?

That was because Boy Clinton, Fatty Berger, and Dick Clarke, refused to kill him when opportunities struck.

Don’t blame Scheuer.

fossten on January 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM

And your point is….? That the polls are wrong?

Giuliani didn’t campaign in Iowa and he abandoned NH (where, incidentally, he beat out Paul, who had not abandoned the state.). It’s no secret that Giuliani is pushing for big states, Florida being one (where, he’s polling quite well, and it’s WTA.) and not small early states. But keep onto the hope, man!

You sound so disappointed.

I’m actually quite happy Paul is seen by the electorate as the crank he is. Last night was just gravy. But when it comes to wondering why major media isn’t paying attention to a 4% candidate, well…it’s because he’s a 4% candidate.

AP, I think the difference is that Giuliani is polling better than low single digits nationwide.

And yet he hasn’t placed third in one actual primary yet. And he’s been beaten by Ron Paul.

I think it’s a major story too, but it’s not going to have legs if Paul isn’t a popular candidate. And he isn’t.

JohnTant on January 11, 2008 at 12:12 AM

You sound so disappointed.

“Congressman Paul, a recent TNR report uncovered some old newsletters put out under your name over a span of over 10 years. With out getting into the specific contents, which much of it is written in the first person with personal details, can you claim responsibility for them. If not, how did the contents of these go out over such a long period under your name with you not knowing the contents of the newsletters”

Paul endorses himself as the candidate with no ability to control anything, promising to be the worst president imaginable.

maverick muse on January 11, 2008 at 8:53 AM

It even seems like he can’t control what comes out of his mouth sometimes. Just the look he gets on his face. His eyes, did I just say that? Ya know? And the lemmings will follow until the end. Then what? What’s the next project lined up?

I do however think that a number of views expressed in those newsletters should be of extreme importance to the people who support Ron Paul. If he is in the habit of publishing stuff that he never has read then he’s way too sloppy to preside over a nation and if he’s lying about not knowing what his people were writing then he’s a liar and unfit to preside. IMHO of course.

The biggest problem I see with Paul is that while he seems to understand the problems we’re facing very well his answers seem more destructive than the problems. Well that and the fact that even if elected he couldn’t accomplish the changes that he promises. The President simply doesn’t have the power to do what he says he would do.

I see Ron Paul as the person who is reminding all of us that we must change directions this nation is heading but maybe not as much as he would change them if he could.

“The only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say.” Ron Paul

Paul endorses himself as the candidate with no ability to control anything, promising to be the worst president imaginable.

And Hot Air, you cannot ignore what I posted.

AP, look out for bunnies cooking on the stove…

Or maybe it’s Piglet. Either way…

Considering that the nation’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer.

Scheuer lost any remaining credibility he had with me on Real Time with Bill Maher. he even confused Maher. The money quote about Israel comes about 4 minutes in. I can see where the Paulnuts connection comes in. I’m not good with putting links in, sorry. After almost a year, you’d think I could do this by now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE

An honest question,

How is Michael Scheuer more of an expert than an American who actually was a member of Al Qaeda?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Scheuer was never able to get that close in all of his super-duper years of Qaeda sleuthing, n’est-ce pas?

“I’m surprised it wasn’t rigged. I guess my two votes (different phones) were worth it.”
— Richie