Did anyone hear on oreilly today...

I hate picking apart grammatical mistakes, by I'm a proofreader by hobby and part time profession, so I'd like to call your attention to the apostrophe key. It is there for use in word's such as "it's," where you're implying "it is." The lack of it implies a sense of illiterateness and detracts from the overall message you're trying to convey.

Speaking of which, now onto your fear mongering.

I'd like to introduce you to Occam's Razor, and while he may be a medieval old fart, he had a valid point in that he shut up a lot of people claiming the earth spun based on magical spirits and seasons changed based on the whims of whatever gods they happened to believe in at the time.

Allow me to ask you this simple question. "What action could the CIA man have taken in order to dissuade you from believing everything he says is part of a vast global conspiracy in which every move is a calculated front, even a move in which our candidate is thrust into an extremely positive light?"

I'm all for peaceful revolution. Heck, I even understand there'll probably be a riot somewhere along the lines, and I'm old enough to remember the national guard tanks rolling down to Detroit to quell the race rioters. Sometimes, violence occurs, whether we like it or not, and the only question is what extent is it justified and how much are we willing to risk?

But can we really claim everything is a perfectly planned maneuver into getting us to do something or another? Is it THAT hard to believe that a CIA man, who understands the situation with Bin Laden, actually SUPPORTS Ron Paul? Paul is the one saying we handled Bin Laden like a bunch of morons, gave money to the Pakistanis with completely absurd ideas, and passed the buck to them in an attempt to get more into their country.

Bin Laden alive and on the run does much more for the Neoconservatives than a dead Bin Laden, we all know that, so I'll just assume they weren't that interested in actually taking him out. It's much easier than making all these strange logical jumps which place the conclusion as the starting point and the evidence haphazardly thrown in where it could warrant such claims.

Have you ever considered the idea that individual operatives within the CIA actually agree with Ron Paul, kind of like how he agrees with them on issues involving the Middle East?

Lets put our thinking caps on, and try and steer away from this sort of baseless conspiracy mongering where every answer supports the conclusion based on the idea that they're using the all powerful magic of "psychology" to lure us one way or another.

Eric Hoffer

That 10 minutes of interview is what I used for the YouTube clip (see below a few posts down) I would like to have got some more in tho. After the segment, he went on for a while about Dr. Paul

Thank you for posting this! I listened to the clip, and will probably need to get the book to hear the full argument. I found more articles from Scheuer here:

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/analysts.php?authorid=251

Great Job! Thank you!