U.S. Leaders’ Fingerprints Are on the Detonators

While the Tsarnaev brothers apparently conducted the Marathon bombings in Boston, the detonators of those bombs also have the fingerprints of most Democratic and Republican politicians all over them, and those men and women are in a measure responsible for each and every one of the Boston casualties. Why? Because once again it is blatantly obvious from the evidence the authorities have presented to date that the attackers were motivated by what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of our freedoms, liberties, and gender equality. So before President Obama and Secretary Kerry, Senators McCain and Graham, and most of the mainstream media swing into intense lying mode — which amounts to “those murderous Muslims are crazy and hate liberty” — here are several contact points with reality worth keeping in mind:

Michael Scheuer
Michael Scheuer

1) To the best of my knowledge, since Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, no Islamist attacker or would-be attacker in the West has ever told the authorities after his arrest that he was motivated to attack by the West’s values, lifestyles, and freedoms. In addition, none of the recovered documents or taped statements by domestic Islamist attackers who died in action have yielded evidence of that kind of motivation. This sort of evidence consistently has shown that the attackers’ overarching motivation to be hatred for U.S. and Western foreign policy toward and intervention in the Islamic world.

2) Likewise, no major Sunni Islamist leader has preached jihad against the United States and the West because of its values, lifestyle, etc. That they loathe many parts of what has become the West’s semi-pagan society is clear; secular democracy and feminism are not coming to their precincts anytime soon, even if Obama, McCain, and Hillary Clinton continue to seek to impose them with bayonets. Nearly to a man, Islamist leaders have unrelentingly sought to focus Muslims on U.S. and Western interventionist policies and actions in the Muslim world. And those leaders have no lack of things to focus Muslim attention on. Since 2011 alone, for example, President Obama and the similarly interventionist NATO leaders have invaded two Muslim countries — Mali and Libya; established a new U.S. military base in Muslim Niger; and are on the verge of intervening in Syria. In addition, they arbitrarily stripped Muslim Sudan of 30-plus percent of its territory and 75-to-80 percent of its oil reserves and gave it to a new and Christian “South Sudan.” To paraphrase what Edmund Burke said about the resistance of American colonials to direct British intervention and taxation, Muslims who would not resist this sort of illegitimate intervention would be fit to be slaves.

3) On the U.S. and Western side of the equation we find a mindlessness that is startling; productive of dead and wounded Americans; and which increases the power of our Islamist enemies. Given points 1 and 2 above, it is nothing less than amazing that senior U.S. political leaders in both parties and much of the media — as well as their counterparts in Europe — continue to preach that Americans are being attacked because of their lifestyle and freedoms. One would think that someone in the media would ask them to produce the evidence for this contention, which of course they could not do. But no one has asked because these politicians, pundits, and journalists would have to admit that U.S. foreign policy — preeminently our support for the Saudi tyranny and Israel; our invasions of Muslim countries; and our efforts to impose Western political and social views on Muslims and neuter Islam — is the main motivation of our Islamist enemies and that, therefore, U.S. policy has helped to kill and maim military and civilian Americans abroad, as well as in Boston, New York, Arkansas, Fort Hood, Texas, Washington, and the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

4) U.S. and Western interventionism also is, in many ways, a two-for for Islamist leaders, their groups, and their ability to attract increasing numbers of young man to their banners. For example, we invade Libya and destroy a viciously anti-Islamist regime. Thereby, we assist in the freeing of thousands of Islamist fighters from Libyan prisons, skilled and experienced men who immediately return to the mujahedin; we facilitate the looting of dozens of arsenals — as we did in Egypt and Tunisia — and so we better arm the mujahedin across Africa; and we deliberately destroy a valuable intelligence ally in our war against the Islamists. And all this in the name of a secular democratic movement that surely exists in the deranged-by-feminism brains of Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice but to no considerable extent anywhere in the Arab world.

5) Just as damaging to the genuine national security interests of the United States and Western Europe is the combination of relentless interventionism and feckless, effeminate war-making. Whether the war was emphatically a necessity — as in Afghanistan — or a criminally whimsical choice — as in Iraq and Mali — the U.S. and its NATO allies always lose. And they lose not because their Islamist enemies are stronger or better armed — they clearly are not — but because the U.S. and the West will not kill the requisite number of the enemy and their supporters and destroy enough of the foe’s resources and infrastructures to make our the Islamists know for certain that the bloody game they started — their religious war against the West — is not worth the candle. As a result, we have suffered truly staggering losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we will in Mali as the Islamist insurgency there evolves and expands. However much President Obama and the war-boys McCain and Graham dress up the effectiveness and describe the success of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of the Muslim world — and especially the young male segment of that population — perceives that the much vaunted U.S. military had its ass kicked and is running home chased by Allah’s warriors, just as the Soviets were evicted from Afghanistan in the 1980s. What better recruiting tool could there be than a perceived reality among young Muslims — underpinned by the reality of U.S. withdrawal-without-victory in Iraq and Afghanistan — that the theoretically omni-powerful U.S. military is an organization that is made reliably contemptible because it is deliberately hamstrung by politicians who are more than willing to wail lamentations and cry crocodile tears over U.S. casualties, but are not willing to protect Americans because they cannot face the reality that the one and only thing that counts in war is victory.

6) So as Boston is cleaned-up and the casualties are buried and tended, all Americans have yet another chance to think about how long they will tolerate a war that Washington refuses to win, while it systematically and knowingly providing much of the motivation for those Islamists intent on killing of Americans. Through its bipartisan truckling to the Saudi and other Gulf tyrannies; its intervention in places like Libya and Syria, where we have no genuine national interest and are helping to put Islamists in power; its willingness to accept U.S. military defeat everywhere; and its unquestioning bipartisan support for Israel and thereby the corruption of U.S. politics by AIPAC and the campaign funds provided by pro-Israel U.S. citizens, Republicans and Democrats are helping to kill Americans, their families, and their children.

7) There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that the young George S. Patton — then fighting to defend the U.S. border with Mexico — raised a July 4th toast to America’s independence with the words: “May God bless America, and may He damn all of her enemies.” At that point in his career, Patton surely had Pancho Villa and his raiders in mind as enemies, not the bipartisan political leaders of the United States. Given where we stand today in our losing war against Islamist insurgents and terrorists, Patton, if alive, might well enlarge the compass of his definition of America’s enemies to include recent U.S. presidents, senators, and congressman — and he would be right to do so.

This article was originally published at Non-Intervention.com and has been used here with permission.

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Michael Scheuer

Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. 

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • Richard

    Pretty much what I was thinking. These pussy-ass intellectuals would lead us to the brink of destruction.

  • JohnWV

    NO MORE WARS! Israel has ICBM nukes and openly threatens Iran, actually campaigns for war against Iran. Israel, not Iran, is the warmonger. Resolution lies with lifting all sanctions and compensating Iran for damages from the $$$ billions we will no longer be giving the Jewish state. American foreign policy must again serve American interests, not the Jewish state’s paranoid pursuit of invulnerability, territorial conquest and racist empire in and beyond the Mideast. NO MORE WARS!

  • Bob B

    A major flaw with Mr. Scheur’s argument is this. Most victims of Al Qaeda and other jihadists have been muslim. Why are they attacking fellow muslims all over the muslim world? The answer is that those muslims do not agree with their world view. Mr. Scheur who do you think their next targets would be if they were to successfully impose their extreme form of Islam on the muslim world. That answer is quite obvious in that it would be any country that opposes them.

  • Deven

    Is it not the American Government’s responsibility to look out for the interests of its own people?

    Of course we intervene in Muslim countries, it is a religion of war and instability, it has been for 1200 years. Everywhere there is Islam, there is instability except in those places where a leader has an iron grip on its populace.

    The American government is worried about trade and energy. Do you think the government really cares that they have different beliefs than us? Do you see our government bothering Buddhists and Hindus?

    The real problem with the American government’s stance on Islam is that we pussy-foot around with them. Worried we’re going to insult their religious sensibilities. To leave these countries without enforcing a Bill of Rights is just ridiculous, and in the name of democracy? Someone needs to tell our government that our country is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Of course, someone needs to tell our people that too, but its obviously not going to come from the President or our school system. We let these people vote with a majority, when their votes would cast out any minority or any of those who do not share their beliefs.

    Overall, this article is ridiculous in its assertions. Iraq is whimsical? Only if you believe the narrative that the liberal media throws at you. I myself am in the camp that it has more to do with Saddaam and the petrodollar, which would be a very legitimate reason for the US to oust him. He basically declared economic war on us. Would you want hyperinflation at home? Would the pain and suffering and starvation of millions of Americans at home be worth not invading Iraq to you?

    Perhaps the real story here is our monetary policy and how it demands that we are interventionists. In that respect, yes, our leaders do have blood on their hands because they have not taken any steps whatsoever to fix our broken monetary system.


    What an insightful argument. And way to tie in General Patton’s disapproval of current US foreign policy. You are so right. I believe that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, & all the founders, if they were alive today, and if they were quoted talking about US enemies, that they would also include current US foreign policy leaders among those enemies. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to “research” whether they actually said something about our enemies which is totally unrelated and devoid of context, but we can assume that they at one time talked about our enemies. And that they would include US foreign policy establishment as the real enemies of the US people is not just idle speculation, but fact!

  • Nicholas

    So how does the author explain the fact that most Muslim terrorism takes places against not “war-mongering” Westerners, but other Muslims?

    What, exactly, did those in Madrid do to warrant the bombings there? They hate us not because of our liberty but because we pose a threat to their way of life. There really is a war on Islam. It’s called civilized society. I’m also not sure why the author pretends that terrorists don’t repeatedly assert that they are attacking in the name of their religion. They say that ALL THE TIME. What they almost never point to is America’s foreign policy. He’s in la la land on this point.

    The notion that Muslims attack the US because of our “intervention” in the Muslim world is laughable. No country has fought and died for Muslims the way the US has. Just in the last 25 years alone US soldiers have died for the liberty of Muslims in Kuwait, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Despite all the hysteria at the time, there is not a shred of evidence that any of those for “for oil.” And, in fact, oil prices have skyrocketed since the Iraq war started. If it really was for oil, the price would have declined relative to other nations…which it hasn’t.

    Finally, this article is based on a series of immoral premises that, for example, murdering innocent people is somehow justified because the US has a military base in Nigeria. What a joke.

  • Colby

    “The U.S. and the West will not kill the requisite number of the enemy and their supporters and destroy enough of the foe’s resources and infrastructures to make the Islamists know for certain that the bloody game they started — their religious war against the West — is not worth the candle.”

    Yeah, because total war worked so well for the Soviets in the graveyard of empires, didn’t it?

    Unless Scheuer is suggesting that we detonate nuclear weapons over Kandahar and the tribal areas or firebomb hundreds of villagers to kill one jihadist – which I sincerely hope he’s not suggesting – total war versus ‘effeminate’ war is a false construction of choice – the enemies’ resources are enormous, variant and fungible and his bases – in a perverse way – are located under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella. Mr. Scheuer may’ve been a talented analyst at one time, but lately is sounding more and more like a cold war blowhard who fancies himself a realist.

  • FreeUlysses

    Mr. Scheuer,

    Osama Bin Laden said on multiple occassions, that he was motivated to attack because we should not have troops in Saudi Arabia.

    Now, am I to understand that if a sovereign nation, and an ally, is welcoming of our presence wherever they may be in the world, that we should abstain because we might upset the sensibilities of Islam’s version of the blood lust of Che?

    • Chitta

      So then it should be perfectly okay for Iran or Syria to invite North Koreans as allies, or for Angolans to invite Cubans and the Cubans to invite Russians. You have to agree if you are going to be intelectualy honest.

  • jesis

    America is run by an Islamic educated purported homosexual who has never done anything meaningful in his existence beyond heralding the socialist takeover of capitalism and the USA. Islamic education is saturation of denial of facts and embracing the narrative.
    The fools and liberals that have elected Davis Obama and Socialism most certainly deserve the extermination they will suffer at the hands of the murderers, criminals, muzslime they support.

  • aslongasyouletthem

    You call yourself a foreign policy expert? This is not about ideology. It is about using Muslim radicals to further the current agenda of the elites, from Africa to Russia to Syria. This arrangement was invented by the British (Lawrence of Arabia), picked up and enhanced by Hitler and no spy ever looked back. SOP.

    The agenda of the U.N. is to knock us all back to the Stone Age. Pretty much well documented. “Equal playing field” or whatever. Resources for them and not for us. For our own good, of course.

  • What is urgent now is to think about where all this is driving US People ? My own published paper: http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-inevitable-counter-revolution-of.html

  • Russ Falconer

    Scheuer is typical of a type sadly all too familiar on the “intellectual” front. It’s always ,ALWAYS America’s fault.Thie reasoning he uses is lawyer argument,consisting of one straw man after another.The truth is that the hundreds of thousands of victims of Militant Islam can be found in Russia ,China ,America,Spain,Britain ,India ,Malaysia,Australia,Egypt,Sudan,Syria,Israel,etc..Were they all victims of American foreign policy?Obviously not. Scheuer is wrong and the saddest aspect of his woeful analysis is that he is dead wrong and does a horrible injustice to the victims of this vile extremist movement.Apologists like Scheuer merely enable the killers and in the end make possible more slaughter of innocents in the future. Russ Falconer

    • Scheuer didn’t argue that all the violence you refer to was “ALWAYS America’s fault”.

  • You are wrong as you are misguided. Islam is at war with itself, a reaction of a being thrust into the modern world. It is not just Americans that terrorist are against but all that Islamist see as degrading influences on Islam including other Muslims. In fact most Islamic religious violence is against other Muslims not the west. The attacks on the West are higher profile but nor more deadly overall.

    A simple fact for unenlightened eyes such as yours is hand picked items of U.S. foreign policy are merely recruitment items, the real war is against western ideas and Muslims who do not tow the line. Since trade in goods and ideas go hand in hand the terrorist would be coming after their great corrupting Satan no matter what. The fact is Islam is going through its own bloody Reformation, a religious civil war that for now has no end in sight.

  • nperry

    I agree here: key word: “effeminate.” We now fight wars to not win. There is no decisiveness when we send troops abroad. It is now all about not inflicting civilian casualties, when it is that very thing which brings enemies to their knees. But when we fight to not win, they (our enemies) have nothing to lose by simply waiting us out; there is no respect for our military, no matter how sophisticated, and no respect for our so-called diplomats because their words betray their own fear to offend or insult, when those words should instead strike fear.

  • How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

    The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. ~Winston Churchill, The River War

  • Logik

    Why should it be apparent that these 2 planted the bombs at all? Only because the proven liars in the US administration say so?

    The whole terror attack has more holes than swiss cheese. We can all watch the photos with all these people running around with black backpacks. Craft contractors(Mercenaries), special forces, foreign operators and patsies all in an *official* training.

    Afterwards we see “The Siege” film from 1998 played out in Boston in record time. With the cherry on top we can even watch Obama’s Secret Service buddy acting as surveillance in the Boston police press conference. What has the secret service to do with a FBI case?

    The authoritarian elements in the US executive show their hands more and more since 11/9 and this is a road to hell. Anybody who tries to spin this here with whatever pseudo left or right rhetoric really lost the plot. This is about TOP and BOTTOM. Not about left or right. It’s about POWER.

    I can’t see any fundamental difference between the US administration and some imperialistic fascist regimes from the past anymore. When the mass media influence erodes even more and the propaganda looses its effectiveness to blind the majority of the population you’ll experience the hands of the mafia personally than occasionally on TV.

  • Michael Scheuer was spot on in the above piece and in response to the C-SPAN caller via the following youtube as well!:

    911 Motive & Media Betrayal:


  • Additional at following URL:

    Neocon driven/inspired Iraq & Afghanistan wars were motive for Boston Bombings (see comments at bottom as well)


    Even General Petraeus conveyed to Congress that US support for Israel is a threat to US troops in theater (scroll to Mondoweiss.net link at following URL and see comments at bottom too):

    General Petraeus Leaked Emails about Israel:


  • Democrazy is now in the USA

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    John Adams

    Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
    John Adams

    Power always thinks… that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.
    John Adams

    The happiness of society is the end of government.
    John Adams

  • Democrazy is now in the USA

    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    James Madison

  • Емилия Димитрова

    20-15 years ago Muslims slaughtered all Christian population in a village after village in Algeria. They have been destroying churches and killing Christians in their own lands for decades. What is the role of the US here? – None. The very existance of Christianity has its fingerprints on the detonators. Muslims behave as the wolf in Lafontain”fable about “Wolf and the lamb” – “You trouble the water….” So – DO NOT BLAME THE VICTIMS!