CIA Chief Endorses Ron Paul

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[Guest WyattEarp]

I'm not too sure what the Chief of the CIA has to do with endorsing Ron Paul, it's not really relevant is it? The CIA doesn't have any pull on elections do they?

I heard Newt Gingrich is out of the running for the White House, thankfully. So I guess it's between Romney, Perry, Santorum and Ron Paul?

If that's the case, I hope Ron Paul wins, and if he wins the nomination, he'll get my vote. If he doesn't, I'll vote for him anyway! I didn't vote for Obama, and I won't vote for him this time either! He is not qualified to be the President of this country, and his performance since he took office has showed that. Let's pray the big "O" is 1 and done.

[Spook]

Your title is WAY off base. He is not the "CIA Chief" - now and never was. He was a mid-level manager who left the CIA years ago. I admire the strength of his convictions but his endorsement of Paul means nothing more than yours or anyone else's.

[RobertNashville]

Who really cares about endorsements? I hope people don't make their decisions about any candidate based on who has or hasn't endorsed them!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What is everyone on this forum doing? Endorsing his or her candidate! If someone

gets a little ad time by doing that, I think it helps or hurts depending on who the

endorser is, don't you? I wouldn't kick a bit of cheaper ads by minimalizing like the

media does every day of people like Ron Paul. I'd embrace every bit of it.

[Defender]

If you REALLY want rid of Obama, then you will vote for whover is wins the GOP primary. I will even if my favorite doesnt get it...anything else will just cause another split like what got Clinton elected because of Perot.

[mav]

Your title is WAY off base. He is not the "CIA Chief" - now and never was. He was a mid-level manager who left the CIA years ago.

It is a little misleading, but it is not way off base. Michael Scheuer was indeed Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. There are many station chiefs within the CIA, and the use of the word chief is very common nomenclature. A more accurate title would have been, "Former Bin Laden Issue Station Chief endorses Ron Paul."

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Endorsements can be somewhat relevant, depending on the credibility (or lack thereof) of the endorser, in the minds of individual voters.

Expert opinion can be useful. Scheuer might be considered an expert on the "underside" of USA foreign policy unless he was asleep at the switch over his career and managed to learn nothing. At the very least Scheuer is probably more expert on the topic than the average bubba on the street.

RP's foreign policy positions are the most criticized part of his platform, among republican pundits. So an "expert" on the practical effects of interventionist foreign policy might be relevant for consideration.

People in top management on foreign policy may have access to different information and make different conclusions.

For instance, we get different stories from BATFE in-the-field whistleblowers, compared to top management in the Justice Dept. Who has a truer view of the situation and is most credible? Each has different experience and information.

So would Hillary's or Condi's opinion on foreign policy be more or less relevant than Scheuer's? Difficult to say.

[Guest BungieCord]

It is a little misleading, but it is not way off base. Michael Scheuer was indeed Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. There are many station chiefs within the CIA, and the use of the word chief is very common nomenclature. A more accurate title would have been, "Former Bin Laden Issue Station Chief endorses Ron Paul."

Implying that a mid-level bureaucrat was DCI is a little misleading?

Did you know Peyton Randolph was the first President of the United States? By your standard he might as well have been.

Oh, did I mention his full title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled"? I guess my referring to him the first POTUS was "a little misleading."

[Spook]

It is a little misleading, but it is not way off base. Michael Scheuer was indeed Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. There are many station chiefs within the CIA, and the use of the word chief is very common nomenclature. A more accurate title would have been, "Former Bin Laden Issue Station Chief endorses Ron Paul."

It is indeed way off base. The head of the CIA is the Director. The original post implies that the Director of the agency endorsed someone. Since that person is named by the sitting president I'm thinking that person wouldn't be endorsing a candidate of the opposite party. Scheurer was head of a unit, any station was a virtual one located inside CIA headquarters. This is not the same as a Chief of Station in an overseas office. To say it was "a little misleading" is an understatement.

[mav]

Implying that a mid-level bureaucrat was DCI is a little misleading?

Did you know Peyton Randolph was the first President of the United States? By your standard he might as well have been.

Oh, did I mention his full title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled"? I guess my referring to him the first POTUS was "a little misleading."

Get real.

Your POTUS analogy is "way off base." Nice try though. As I stated in my post, the word "chief" is very common nomenclature when referring to heads of departments within the CIA. The head of the CIA is most commonly referred to as the CIA Director or just Director. For example, I pulled this job posting from the CIA's website

[h=1]CIA Announces New Position, Chief of Corporate Learning[/h]

CIA Director David H. Petraeus announced last week that he has created a new position at the Agency on his leadership team—the CIA's first Chief of Corporate Learning. He selected John Pereira, a senior officer with considerable experience and currently the CIA's Director for Support, to serve in this role. The Director stated, "I am committed to building an even stronger culture of continual learning at the CIA." He added, "I have found through hard experience that, for any organization, there is no substitute for continually learning, adapting, and improving. The smarter we are as an Agency, the more effective we are at our mission—and the American people understandably expect their Central Intelligence Agency to be second to none in that regard."

The new Chief of Corporate Learning will focus on developing a strong and agile learning environment at the CIA. "We have a highly skilled, well trained, and deeply mission focused workforce in CIA," explained Pereira. "We owe them an environment that better links learning with performance, that challenges some of our old assumptions, and that increases the speed with which we apply and disseminate lessons learned." CIA will work with partners in the Intelligence Community, academic institutions, and established industry leaders in developing and implementing their learning strategy.

The acronym "POTUS" refers to the President of the United States and in common usage it is never used for any other person.

The reason I stated it is a little misleading is not everybody realizes that a CIA chief doesn't necessarily refer to the director. However, we have a video right below the title showing who the endorsee is and provides some of his background. Now, because we have video showing who it is and why he is endorsing Paul right below the title and as the original post, it is a "little" misleading. If this was a text transcript offering no additional information on the background of the endorsee then it would have been highly misleading even though it would not have been inaccurate.

I know this hurts a lot of people who do not like Paul and think he is nuts on foreign policy. The only thing I can say is, sorry.

[kieefer]

Who really cares about endorsements? I hope people don't make their decisions about any candidate based on who has or hasn't endorsed them!

+1

I don't pay much attention to them either, even if I did support RP would a vote from David Duke make any difference?

I mean, he's pretty much irrelevant now'n days isn't he?

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/former-kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke-says-he’s-voting-for-ron-paul/

[Guest mustangdave]

Some endorcements are about as worthless as the TP they're written on...I count this as one of those...Ron Paul has a few good points...but not enough for me to even consider voting for him.

[RobertNashville]

The problem with endorsements is that anybody can endorse anybody. I suspect that if some mas murdered endorsed Ron Paul, there wouldn't be any RP robots out here proclaiming the fact.

When I'm personally dealing with someone I don't know but a friend I have great respect for "endorses" that person to me; that means a lot...when it's some bureaucrat or political hack or some entertainer endorsing a politician; it's less than useless IMAHO.

[Currently]

Why Ron Paul?

THIS ....

[Timestepper]

I know this hurts a lot of people who do not like Paul and think he is nuts on foreign policy. The only thing I can say is, sorry.

I think Ron Paul is just nuts, period. I'd vote for his son as a write-in before I'd vote for him. I know this hurts a lot of people who like everything about Ron Paul. The only thing I can say is, sorry.

[mav]

I know this hurts a lot of people who like everything about Ron Paul. The only thing I can say is, sorry.

Why would your claim that Paul is nuts and that you will not vote for him hurt a lot of people who like everything about Paul? Are you some sort of expert that has national recognition like Michael Scheuer? I have no idea who you are, but I would guess probably not. So, your commitment to not vote for Paul might hurt someone, but a lot of people? Sorry, but no.

[kb4ns]

If you REALLY want rid of Obama, then you will vote for whover is wins the GOP primary.

I used to think it was best to vote for the lesser of two evils. Then I realized... it's still evil.

[Timestepper]

Get real.

Your POTUS analogy is "way off base." Nice try though. As I stated in my post, the word "chief" is very common nomenclature when referring to heads of departments within the CIA. The head of the CIA is most commonly referred to as the CIA Director or just Director. For example, I pulled this job posting from the CIA's website

The acronym "POTUS" refers to the President of the United States and in common usage it is never used for any other person.

The reason I stated it is a little misleading is not everybody realizes that a CIA chief doesn't necessarily refer to the director. However, we have a video right below the title showing who the endorsee is and provides some of his background. Now, because we have video showing who it is and why he is endorsing Paul right below the title and as the original post, it is a "little" misleading. If this was a text transcript offering no additional information on the background of the endorsee then it would have been highly misleading even though it would not have been inaccurate.

I know this hurts a lot of people who do not like Paul and think he is nuts on foreign policy. The only thing I can say is, sorry.

Originally posted by Mav: Why would your claim that Paul is nuts and that you will not vote for him hurt a lot of people who like everything about Paul? Are you some sort of expert that has national recognition like Michael Scheuer? I have no idea who you are, but I would guess probably not. So, your commitment to not vote for Paul might hurt someone, but a lot of people? Sorry, but no.

Why would YOU think that your original statement would hurt "a lot of people who do not like Ron Paul and think he is nuts on foreign policy"? Are YOU a political analysis expert? I don't know you either, except from what I've seen here on TGO, but I doubt it. And I don't see how your post is unequivocal fact that those who don't like Ron Paul would somehow be hurt by your "revelation."

I was being somewhat sarcastic and a bit of a smart-ass. If I even had a point it was that your post would NOT necessarily hurt those who don't like Ron Paul because most of us couldn't care less. I seemed to have proved my point because you took offense to it (read "was obviously "hurt" by it") while I, on the other hand, kinda' chuckled when I read your response.

By all means continue to support Mr. Paul - everyone needs to believe in something - and I'll continue to be an unapologetic smart-ass and call things the way I see them.

Oh, and no I'm not "some sort of political expert that has national recognition like Michael Scheuer" although I am pretty well known - via other forums and outlets and under other screen names - to quite a chunk of the country and have been told that I'd make good a good political commentator. Truth is that I'd never heard of Michael Scheuer before this thread. Not surprising since he's probably never heard of me either, even though IRL we are probably both equally accomplished and well known in our particular fields. Fact remains that he has about as much chance of influencing the coming election as I do. His is one vote, as is mine. And his opinion carries about as much weight in the circles I travel as my opinion does in his.

All hail Ron Paul! (Or is that, "Aw hell, Ron Paul?!!")

P.S. If you're wondering why I even bothered to comment in the first place, let's just attribute it to boredom. After several hours of pick and shovel work yesterday to dig up and repair a water line buried beneath the driveway, I'm convalescing today in true old-fart manner with with the laptop and spiked coffee and very low DOGAS.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Timestepper
Added a Post Script

[mav]

Why would YOU think that your original statement would hurt "a lot of people who do not like Ron Paul and think he is nuts on foreign policy"? Are YOU a political analysis expert? I don't know you either, except from what I've seen here on TGO, but I doubt it. And I don't see how your post is unequivocal fact that those who don't like Ron Paul would somehow be hurt by your "revelation."

Okay, let me see if I can tone down the rhetoric some. I will try to be as coherent as I can be in regards to why I made that comment. First off, there are two extremist camps that have developed during this campaign cycle. The Ronulans, Paulbots, or whatever you want to call them, and the other are the anti-Paulians. As I was telling a fellow TGOer the other day, one camp is just as bad as the other. The Ronulans refuse to accept anything negative about Paul, i.e. he is infallible. The anti-Paulians refuse to accept anything positive about Paul. Both are bad.

I am a conservative and I always have been. Believe it or not, I did not support Paul in 2008 priimarily because of his foreign policy views. Between 2008 and the present I started to change, I started to become an independent thinker. I question almost everything I hear and read, and I will try to reasearch what is being said to check its veracity. Paul's foreign policy views have been absolutely trashed within the right-wing blogosphere and the conservative news media. What I have found is that some of the things said about Paul in the venues I participate in or listen to (right-wing blogs and right-wing talk radio) are true, some are a half true, and some are just false. I have come to realize that there are those who will say anything in defense of Paul, and there are those who will say anything to attack Paul regardless of the validity. I am trying my best to be intellectually honest, and when I read things that are a distortion of truth and/or facts, I may from time to time chime in and give my thoughts on the matter.

The video in the original post is an excellent example. Michael Scheuer is a well respected expert on both sides of the aisle on middle eastern affairs, primarily extremist/militant Islam. Not everybody agrees with his analysis, but he is well respected nonetheless. He was in the CIA for 22 years and served as the chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. What he is saying in this video, and to be honest, what he has said for years is the exact opposite of what the Levins, Hannities, and Limbaughs are saying. The later three are by no means experts. In all honesty, they are nothing more than entertainers (Rush has even said such). Now, to those that already have their mind made up on Paul, which is totally fine, Scheuer's comments aren't going to have any affect. In regards to those who are more independent minded, Scheuer's statements (not mine) are damaging to the narrative that some individuals within the media and elsewhere are trying to create about Paul.

Since Scheuer's statements are damaging to the narrative, there are some people that will try to minimize his credentials by suggesting that he is a nobody, which is intellectually dishonest. When I see that happen, I may speak up in defense. Like I said earlier, nobody has to agree with his analysis, but due to his experience and line of work, I will give his analysis more credence over the talk show mafia when making a decision on who I choose to vote for in the primary.

For the record, I am a nobody. I'm just a chemist who is conservative and happens to support Paul.

Edited January 8, 2012 by mav

[Timestepper]

Fair enough.

FWIW, I'm not really anti-Ron Paul, I just think he's a little too far out there for my own conservative values and so I really take no other notice of him . I guess - since it could be argued that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy - that it could be construed that I am indeed an "anti-Paulian" but I would never identify myself as such.

As to Mr. Scheuer (and you and me)... Funny thing about the world - We are all nobodies and all somebodies to other somebodies and nobodies. And just because we and others think we are nobodies or somebodies doesn't change the fact that somebody or nobody may indeed think we are nobody or somebody. We all have one vote. No one's vote is more or less important than anyone else's. Where my vote is cast won't be influenced by someone who is somebody to other somebodies, but remains a nobody to me, just as I'm sure somebody else's vote won't be influenced by a nobody like me even though I may be somebody to someone else, even if it's nobody that anybody else thinks is a somebody.

[kieefer]

Gotta love this one,

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received some warm personal praise from an unexpected quarter, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., described him as "a gentleman," although she seemed to reserve the right to attack him if he wins the Republican nomination.

"I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul," Pelosi said today on CNN, when asked to comment on her long-time fellow representative. "He acts upon his convictions and he's a nice fellow in the Congress of the United States. He's a gentleman."

Rather than discuss his potential as a president, she said that "when we get to the nomination, when they have somebody, we can talk about that."

Sorry, can't help it.

[mav]

Gotta love this one,

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received some warm personal praise from an unexpected quarter, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., described him as "a gentleman," although she seemed to reserve the right to attack him if he wins the Republican nomination.

"I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul," Pelosi said today on CNN, when asked to comment on her long-time fellow representative. "He acts upon his convictions and he's a nice fellow in the Congress of the United States. He's a gentleman."

Rather than discuss his potential as a president, she said that "when we get to the nomination, when they have somebody, we can talk about that."

Sorry, can't help it.

What is wrong with that? Paul is very well respected for sticking to his convictions.

Here is another quote for you.

You're working for the most honest man in Congress

That was said by John McCain in 1988 to Kent Synder who worked on the Paul campaign.

[kieefer]

What is wrong with that? Paul is very well respected for sticking to his convictions.

Here is another quote for you.

That was said by John McCain in 1988 to Kent Synder who worked on the Paul campaign.

I found it hilarious that Pelosi of all people would speak kindly of another republican/libertarian. Made me wonder about that Blue Republican movement also.

Could be a coded message to her followers

[Guest Tom Gold]

Your title is WAY off base. He is not the "CIA Chief" - now and never was. He was a mid-level manager who left the CIA years ago. I admire the strength of his convictions but his endorsement of Paul means nothing more than yours or anyone else's.

He was in fact a CIA Chief heading the Osama Bin Laden Unit. The position in charge of the CIA is called the Director. And he didn't just leave the CIA, he's retired CIA and only left because he wanted to be able to speak out against stupidity.

Further, his endorsement is meaningful because he knows what he's talking about, unlike someone named Spook posting on the Internet.