Today here at Connecting the Dots we’re celebrating the ninth edition of the Michael Scheuer Watch. The hero of this series, after frenetically answering some of my earlier posts — on some occasions writing three separate comments within minutes in response to a single item by me — has become as silent as Marcel Marceau. I have some theories about why that might be. But I am also putting out some bait to see we if can lure him back into the fray.
The first worm we’re putting on the hook is an op-ed I wrote for today’s Wall Street Journal entitled Lobbyists or Spies?. It’s about the prosecution of two former employees of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group.
In the past, regardless of what questions have been raised about his own conduct, and no matter how irrelevant to the matter under discussion, our hero has never missed an opportunity to mount his hobbyhorse, which is about how Israeli spies “do whatever they want inside of America and no one carries them to task for it” while at the same time, the U.S. government “consistently tries to suppress any kind of publication” of information pertaining to Israeli espionage. If Scheuer is right about this, and the government really is suppressing information pertaining to Israeli espionage, perhaps that explains his mysterious silence. Let’s see.
I am baiting a second hook with a plain-spoken letter I received from a reader. If I were in the shoes of our hero, I would have a very difficult time not writing a reply and pressing the send button, simply because remaining AWOL, after writing so many comments in the past, would make me look like I might be losing ground or, worse, hiding something.
But I am not in our hero’s shoes. And even though I have been closely studying his conduct, I will confess that I still don’t understand what makes him tick. In any case, here’s what “Dave in Texas” wrote:
I’m just now starting to follow this little dustup between Mr. Schoenfeld and Mr. Scheuer, and it’s beginning to be very interesting.
And since Mr. Scheuer is reading these things, I am confident I can address him directly here:
Mr. Scheuer, I’ve known some high flyers in business who weren’t the best at spelling or expressing themselves. In this day and age, most of them simply use spellcheck. Back then, they used secretaries.
Spellcheck is free, and on every computer. Your dreadful efforts at spelling and writing speak volumes about you. You must be aware that your spelling is sloppy, but you don’t use spellcheck. I believe this means one or more of the following:
You are so arrogant, you believe everything you say is important enough to not bother checking whether you’ve said or written it right.
You are so tightly strung, you can’t stand to wait for spellcheck. Your righteous responses to the evil Mr. Schoenfeld demand instantaneous posting, so as not to deprive the plebes out there in webland from a moment’s enjoyment of, and learning from, your righteous pronouncements.
Mr. Scheuer, in what year were you awarded that medal for CIA service? And will you post, here or anywhere, the written explanation of why you were given that medal?
And no, I’m not anyone important, so don’t tell me I have to demand a hearing in the Senate so you can testify on record about how evil Bush is and how evil Jews are. Just post here, that’ll be fine . . . tell us the year you got the medal, and what the paper says its for.
Oh yes, and tell us where exactly we rubes in flyover country can find that document in national records, to check and make sure you’re not lying.
Dave in Texas
Mr. Scheuer, Dave is right. Just answer the questions. Readers who want to place bets about whether our former CIA man will reappear, or who want to offer explanations of why he might not reappear, can do so below or write to me privately at [email protected] and put Michael Scheuer Watch in the subject line.
A complete guide to other items in this Michael Scheuer Watch series can be found here.
