I can't recall ever ever thinking Scheuer was a "liberal", but hey, if I were forced to split the political spectrum into a binary, I'd probably go with the war/anti-war dichotomy as being a better representation of contemporary political worldviews rather than the archaic liberal/conservative.

I'm not suggesting that we remove ourselves from the Middle East. My book, if anything, is a hawkish statement that we have not nearly applied enough military power or intelligence power to our enemies. There is a great deal--and it's not very popular to say it--but there's a great deal of killing to be done. Some of the actions in the brilliant operation in Fallujah this week by the Marines is the kind of operation we're going to have to undertake, but the point is military and intelligence work by itself is never going to solve this issue.

Michael Scheuer, NBC Meet The Press, November 21, 2004

Even when he was just referred to as anonymous, Scheuer was not the rousing pro-Democratic Party supporter many believed he was:

(Videotape, Wednesday):
"ANONYMOUS" CIA ANALYST: Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaeda and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get. It validated what they all said about American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world.
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Speaker Gingrich, that's a much larger view by a 22-year veteran of the CIA who believes that we, in effect, have given Osama bin Laden a gift by radicalizing a part of the world in even a more extreme form prior than it had been to the invasion of Iraq.

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, let me say first of all that that view, if you read his book, is much more complicated than just that quote. He basically suggests that unless we're willing to give up the oil fields, we're willing to abandon Israel, we're willing to abandon every major government in the Arab world that we are in a total war with bin Laden, that we have to either win or die. If you read the whole book, he says this is harder--and I think this is the key point that you were driving at a minute ago, Tim. This is a mess, but somebody has to stand up and say, "You know, this a real war." This is not just some game on television where the good guys get to go in and clean out the bad guys and it's all done in 30 minutes and we all go home and have a beer.

This is a real war with real enemies who genuinely want to kill us. They want to kill us in Saudi Arabia where they're working. They want to kill us in Turkey. They want to kill us in Pakistan. They want to kill us in Afghanistan. They want to kill us in Iraq. And as they proved on 9/11, if they can find a way to get here, they're going to try to kill us in the United States.

Now, in a real war from 1861 to '64, it was a mess. From 1939 to 1944, it was a mess. The other side gets to be on offense, too. And I think if the president has any specific need right now, it is to look the American people in the face and say, "Every time you watch somebody having their head sawn off on television, remember that the lesson of 9/11 is we have to stick this out and win."

And I would say back to friends on the other side: Would we really be safer today if Saddam was still in power? Would we really have a better world if Saddam were still in power? I don't think so. And that doesn't mean I agree with everything we've done in the last year, but it is in general in the right direction. And we had better hope that both in Afghanistan, in Pakistan and in Saudi Arabia and Iraq that the forces of civilization defeat the forces of barbarism.

NBC Meet the Press, Jume 27, 2004

Also, Woolsey seems to have severed his current association with the Jamestown Foundation; Marcia Carlucci, currently sits on its board and did in 2006. Another stand-out board member is Alfred Regnery.

This data a current scrape direct from The Jamestown Foundation: Board Member page, plus a personal scrape archive from last year, but the Internet Archive first shows Marcia Carrlucci as a board member in 2006 in their June 14, 2006 mirror. (not intended as a flame, just to show why one source isn't to be trusted, my guess in this instance would be RightWeb, which is a very good source, but it is, like many other non-profits, understaffed and underfunded. As their database evolves into a bigger set, the updating process stretches out on a longer timeline).

It's hard to quantify The Jamestown Foundation as pure right, even given their funding and board members. It was founded as an anti-Soviet think-tank provided as a soap-box for former Soviet officials who has come over from the other-side. To call it "right" distorts the reality quite a bit. They are currently one of the best places to acquire Central Asian wonkage that doesn't just suck, and were actually pretty solid producers of product which offered strong evidence that Mr. Bush's obscene alliance with Islam 'Butcher of Andijon' Karimiov, Uzbekistan's Kleptocratic dictator, was counterproductive to the GWOT, as well as a blatant expression of hypocrisy by the uncompromising defender of Democratic processes worldwide. Cutting to the chase: it ain't AEI, The Heritage Foundation or The Federalist Society. Using simple tagging which implies this relationship; is a mite bit defamatory.

There are many who value liberty over political ideology, and are willing to accept a bit of intimacy with entities whom they are oppositional with on other fronts, if it is viewed as a method to advance liberty in states whose governments are reprehensible. Mapping this within a left/right dichotomy is likely to add spew to Contemporary Conservatism's Pack of Barking Head Moral Relativists (personal favorite example: Davey Horowitz).

Don,

its a recipe for growing the number of people that wish to do us harm.

One of Scheuer's 'points' from 4/17/2007:

European Union (EU) presides over the earth’s single largest terrorist safe haven, and has done so for a quarter century.

Why the heck didn't we (re-)invade Europe? Operation Overlord II?

Another 'point', from Scheuer, who was in charge or involved in the Rendition Program before and after 9/11:

..the Rendition Program has been the single most effective counterterrorism operation ever conducted by the United States government. Americans are safer today because of the program, but that degree of safety will ebb as the Senators just mentioned slowly but surely destroy the program.

I guess the 'degree of safety' ebbed a tad on 9/11.

It still belongs in the Blame Bush Category:

Mr. Lehrer: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single-most serious threat to the national s ecurity of the United States?

Sen. Kerry: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There are some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing that, it will take 13 years to get it.

I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago, maybe six or seven years ago, called, "The New War," which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it, and the black market sale price was about $250 million.

Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today. And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11. We have to do this job, and to do the job, you can't cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership. And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

Right now, the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages, we're telling other people, you can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world, we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation. And we're going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we're going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation -- this is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It's our generation's equivalent. And I intend to get it done.

Mr. Lehrer: Ninety second, Mr. President.

Mr. Bush: Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation, about 35 percent since I've been the president.

Secondly, we've set up what's called the -- well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why we've put proliferation as the -- one of the centerpieces of a multi-prong strategy to make the country safer. My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative, over 60 nations involved with disrupting the transshipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials. And we've been effective.

We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to disarm, an essential part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.

I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long run is to continue to with missile defenses. And we've got a robust research-and-development program that has been ongoing during my administration.

We'll be implementing a missile defense system relatively quickly.

And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century. My opponent is opposed to the missile defenses.

September 30, 2004 Presidential Debate, University of Miami, Florida

The A.Q. Khan network claim was an outright lie, and to top that off, The Bush Administration had kept hidden the knowledge that it was Pakistan, as a middleman, unbeknownst to the Koreans, who had reexported N.Korean Nuke Tech to The Mideast and N. Africa. North Korea was only selling tech to an already known Nuclear Power, while Mr. Bush's good ally, Pakistan had been the real proliferater, and they lied about it.

I never knew a man could tell so many lies
He had a different story for every set of eyes.
How can he remember who he's talkin' to?
'Cause I know it ain't me, and I hope it isn't you.
-Neil Young, "Ambulance Blues", On The Beach

Then of course there is Scheuer's gem abouut John O'Neill, the former FBI counterterrorism official who was killed in the 9/11 attack on the WTC: "I think I said the only good thing that happened to America on 11 September was that the building fell on him, sir."