Is HULU joining the fake, corrupting, and leftist media to mislead Americans about 9/11?

On 19 December 2015, I wrote in this space that I had been asked by the author Lawrence Wright to help him prepare a television docudrama about the years leading up to Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks for a company called HULU. (NB: After some research,  I understand that HULU is widely purported to be a prolific and discerning producer of television programming.) In the above-noted 2015 article, I wrote that I had ignored Mr. Wright’s request and explained why. I have included that entire article as an appendix below.

Over the past several weeks, I ran across a number of articles on the internet that recount the actors being hired to act in Mr. Wright’s docudrama, which the HULU brains trust seem to have bought from Mr. Wright to turn into a series to air later in 2017. Several of these articles included the following synopsis of the story, apparently as it pertains to the character that plays my part; using the first initials of my first and last name, the character is called Martin Schmidt. Oddly, the other actors in the film who are mentioned in the articles appear to be using the true names of people I worked with, such as George Tenet, John O’Neil, etc. Does Mr. Wright’s decision to make up a false name for a living and easily identifiable person immunize him from the laws of libel, defamation, and slander? Perhaps it does, but we shall see.  Anyway, here is a pertinent quote from one of the articles I mentioned above. (Italics added).

“Peter Sarsgaard will play Martin Schmidt, a CIA analyst who invariably believes he’s by far the smartest person in the room. Under orders to share intelligence with John O’Neill (Daniels) and the FBI, Schmidt opts instead to horde information under the misguided notion that the CIA is the only agency equipped to battle potential terrorist threats.” (1)

After reading this passage, I understood why Mr. Wright is calling this a docudrama, and my own wisdom in steering clear of the project. He is calling it a docudrama because at least this part of his story is a complete, utter, and easily provable lie. Now, having spoken to Mr. Wright on numerous occasions several years ago while he was drafting his book The Looming Tower — and then reading that fantasy on its  publication — I am intimately familiar with Mr. Wright’s duplicity and abhorrence for truth, as well as his very selective and always anti-CIA use of public information that is available about 9/11, Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda.  In my view, his book amply proved that nothing that Mr. Wright says, writes, or produces on these issues can be accepted without checking the facts, not least of all because, as we shall see below, he apparently never checks facts himself. In the above passage, for example, he claims “Martin Schmidt”  was a “CIA analyst”.

Assuming that “Martin Schmidt” is me — and it seems it could be no one else — Mr. Wright is lying about a fact that is easily checkable. I worked at the CIA from September, 1982, until November 2004. During that period, I was an analyst from September, 1982, until December, 1985.  After December 1985, I worked on, and then managed, covert operations in the Directorate of Operations. In other words, a mere nine words into the foregoing synopsis, Mr. Wright has knowingly lied to his audience and to those paying for his film. Does anyone at HULU bother to check facts or accuracy before they buy a property?

This is a small but telling point. The bigger, more important, and history-disfiguring lie in Mr. Wright’s docudrama, however, comes at the end of the above passage (Italics added).

“Under orders to share intelligence with John O’Neill (Daniels) and the FBI, Schmidt opts instead to horde information under the misguided notion that the CIA is the only agency equipped to battle potential terrorist threats.”

This is particularly important in terms of history; the citizenry’s trust in the CIA’s all-out effort, and the integrity its work against UBL, before 9/11; and, in personal, and I suppose selfish terms, what my children and grandchildren will think about me and what I did to try to defend the republic. Mr. Wright’s promotional material also claims that his docudrama “takes a controversial look at how the rivalry between the CIA and FBI inadvertently might have set the stage for the tragedy of 9/11 and the war in Iraq.” (2) That means, I assume, that my — or rather, Martin Schmidt’s — decision to “horde information” and hide it from the FBI led directly to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Naturally, I am eager not only to defend myself, but also the officers I had the privilege to lead; our colleagues in the field who risked their lives to locate bin Laden; and the pre-Obama Agency that I dearly loved. But I am not going to do that. Instead, I will let the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Mary Jo White, explain the nature and extent of my own, my unit’s, and the CIA’s cooperation and information-sharing with the D0J lawyers and FBI officers assigned to work with CIA against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

In so doing, I think, it will be apparent that Mr. Wright is nothing more than a two-bit liar and a devout Clinton acolyte when it comes to my and CIA’s pre-9/11 behavior as it has been described in the above promotional material for his docudrama. If Mr. Wright has decided to lie on these easily verifiable issues, one wonders what other lies he has built into the rest of his docudrama, or his books for that matter. HULU executives, should you not be wondering the same?

Wright’s above-mentioned lies cover the period from the creation of Alec Station in December, 1995, until I was replaced as its chief in June, 1999. The document written by Ms. White that is presented below will, I think, clearly demonstrate Mr. Wright’s intentional deceit, which appears to be the pivot for his docudrama. Mr. Wright’s lie therefore invalidates the portion of his docudrama that covers 43 of the 60 months — or almost 72-percent — of the chronological period apparently encompassed in the docudrama. Other CIA officers — former and current — are better positioned than I to know if there is any truth in the final 28-percent of the docudrama.

You do have to tip your hat to Mr. Wright for at least one reason, however. He presumably will walk away from his docudrama with a substantial paycheck derived from his scamming of HULU, its executives, and its investors, stockholders, and audience by selling them a fantasy under the the title of docudrama. I guess some television moguls are not as smart and savvy as they are cracked up to be. But do not worry, HULU brass, I will keep an eye out for more of Mr. Wright’s promotional materials. I will try to identify for you any additional lies therein, lies which you are paying for and which will be used to mislead — indeed, propagandize — HULU’s audiences.  That Mr. Wright appears to be yet another leftist, fake-media shill is no surprise to me, so I may have a lot to report. It will be interesting to learn whether HULU’s management is interested in discovering, and then correcting, the manner in which they are being skinned.

Following, then, is a letter I received in May, 1999, from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Mary Jo White. It clearly demonstrates, I think, that Mr. Wright’s docudrama is grounded in his deliberate, blatant, and easily proven lie, a lie that shreds his credibility and gives him a well-deserved place in the pantheon of blackguards who are recognized as iconic purveyors of fake media.

U.S.. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

May 24, 1999

Michael Scheuer

Central Intelligence Agency
Langley, Virginia

Dear Mike:

I write to express my profound gratitude for your
outstanding work and leadership over the last four years in the
investigations of Usama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, al

As you know, this Office began a criminal investigation
into Usama Bin Laden and the al Qaeda network three years ago,
working in conjunction with the New York Office of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Since the first day, you and
your colleagues welcomed members of our office to participate in
discussions with you and your colleagues as to how the separate
but related law enforcement and intelligence investigations could
coordinate to make sure that neither did anything to compromise
the other and, where legal and appropriate, to enhance each
other. I know from first hand knowledge that early on in the
case — when the Bin Laden network was not in the public eye —
the prosecutors in my office were awed both by your incredibly
diligent work ethic and your determination to make your mission a
successful one, as well as the efforts you made early on in the
case to coordinate your work with the law enforcement effort in a
manner that in my experience was unprecedented in this country’s
history. It was obvious from the work of your staff who labored
hard with tremendous resolve that your diligence and
determination were contagious. That effort — combined with the
accommodations you made at critical times to allow the
evidentiary needs of law enforcement to be protected — made it
possible for Usama Bin Laden to be indicted by a federal grand
jury in the Southern District of New York in June 1998. Without
your diligence, leadership and cooperation, your law enforcement
partners would simply not have been able to obtain such an
Indictment and for that my Office and the public will always be
in your debt.

The diligence and professionalism of you and your
staff, and your willingness to work hand in hand with Special
Agent Daniel Coleman and the prosecutors in my office where and
as appropriate, also made it possible to charge many of the
suspects indicted so soon after the horrific East Africa Embassy
bombings. Law enforcement had a running start on that
investigation because you had been not only willing, but eager,
to share information with us from the beginning. I also know
that no one has logged more hours than you did to work against
the Bin Laden network. I know that your prodigious labors had to
take much time away you could otherwise have spent with your
family. Having recently met with many of the victims’ families,
rest assured that your efforts to prevent terrorist acts, and
your willingness to help us hold those who carried out past
attacks responsible, have had a very real impact on your fellow
Americans as well as the citizens of Kenya and Tanzania and other
countries. I would be honored if you would allow me to present
a plaque to you at a time which would allow both you and your
family to be present as they have shared in your sacrifice. We
would very much like to express our appreciation to them as well.

In short, you have been a leader and a valued colleague
in the fight against international terrorism. I cannot overstate
the significance of your staff’s work and their dedication to the
preservation of our nation’s security. As a symbolic but
heartfelt memento of the effort put forth by you and your staff,
I present you with one of the original warrants obtained for the
arrest of Usama Bin Laden on June 10, 1998. To my Office, it
represents a watershed in how the law enforcement and
intelligence communities ought to cooperate and we thank you for
making it possible.

Sincerely yours,


United States Attorney

cc: The Honorable George Tenet
Central Intelligence Agency






Hollywood to again whitewash Clinton’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks?

I suppose it was to be expected. Another presidential election cycle, another Hollywood effort to whitewash Bill Clinton’s singular responsibility for the attacks of 11 September 2001, an effort also probably meant to aid Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential ambitions.

First, there was the two-part television miniseries called “The Path to 9/11”, which was aired by ABC in the United States on 10-11 September 2006. Apparently worried that the film’s maker might be going to tell the truth about Clinton’s direct personal responsibility for leaving Osama bin Laden alive and at large so that he could stage an operation that killed nearly 3,000 dead Americans, the media reported that the Clinton organization and its lawyers intervened with ABC to cleanse the film of any attempt to explain — our even suggest — that the ex-president was accountable for the deaths, which he is. Indeed, Clinton’s culpability is so obvious, and the evidence thereof so abundant, that the film was made even after the late-felon Sandy Berger stole some of the documentary proof thereof from the National Archives to protect Clinton’s reputation and his wife’s political viability.

Next, in 2012, came the “Zero Dark Thirty” movie. This film shined the respective apples of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and reportedly was supported by Obama administration briefings that included classified national-security data which was compromised whether or not it was used in the movie. But then, as Hillary Clinton has so definitively proven, U.S. national security matters not at all to Democrats and their Hollywood allies if some vote-losing truth can be hidden or at least distorted long enough to win presidential elections.

Now, there is a third film project about 9/11 that is very likely to provide a second whitewash by making the American-killer Bill Clinton appear as a ready-to-act, would-be hero who was ill-served by the U.S. intelligence community, and especially the CIA.

Late in November, 2015, I received the e-mail below from Lawrence Wright, author of the purportedly non-fiction work, The Looming Tower. I should note that Wright contacted me after I resigned from the CIA because I had been CIA’s Chief of Alec Station (December 1995- June 1999), the officers of which, with their courageous CIA colleagues overseas, gave Bill Clinton at least ten opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden from May, 1998, until April-May, 1999. Two of these opportunities would have been executed by CIA, the other eight by the U.S. military using CIA intelligence. (NB: For an open-source confirmation of many of these opportunities, see The 9/11 Commission Report. The media appear to have skipped these pages.)

So, here is the e-mail mentioned above:

–(1) Mon, Nov 30, 2015 4:23 pm
From Lawrence Wright
From Lawrence Wright lawrencewright@XXXXX
To Mike Scheuer
Cc Alex Gibney pag@XXXXXcom, Daniel Futterman danielfutterman@XXXXXcom

Dear Mike,

I wanted to alert you to the fact that I have sold a series to Hulu about the run-up to 9/11, based in part on my book, “The Looming Tower.” It is a dramatic series, not a documentary. I am working with the Academy Award -winning director Alex Gibney, and writer Dan Futterman, who has two Academy Award nominations for his work.

Mike, you’ll be a character in this series, because of your role at Alec Station. Alex, Danny, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to talk with you in person in order to get a clearer understanding of your experience.

We were hoping to make a trip to the DC area the week of Dec. 14, and would like to talk to you while we’re there. Is there a date when you could meet us that week? For our purposes, the 16th or 17th of December would work best.

Many thanks for your consideration on this.


After reading the note, I decided to neither respond nor participate. I have had a good deal of experience with Mr. Wright. While he was preparing the Looming Tower, for example, I had a goodly number of telephone conversations with him — all of which I taped — during which I answered his questions and tried to explain the multiple chances the CIA had given Clinton to eliminate bin Laden. I mistakenly thought that Mr. Wright was a serious writer, not a Democratic shill, but the book he produced is so far from the truth about what happened intelligence-wise before 9/11 – at least as I experienced it, and I was pretty involved — that it is quite near a soap opera-like parody of reality, albeit spiced up with bits of sophomoric psychological analysis of the people he describes, Americans and Islamists alike. The Looming Tower, in fact, may be a perfect book on which to base the fictional and likely reality-free dramatic series Mr. Wright refers to in his note.

So, as Mr. Wright noted above, the American people soon will be treated to another piece of what is nearly certain to be pro-Clinton propaganda about the “run-up to 9/11”. No doubt it will be glitzy and entertaining, and it will damn the U.S. Intelligence Community — especially the CIA — because, as Mr. Wright said on Fox News Sunday on 1 October 2006, Clinton was “poorly served” by the U.S. intelligence agencies. [1]

Well, Americans can watch this coming film and think what they want, but there is one man who knows the truth about the run-up to 9/11. Fortunately for the nation and for its historical record — safer now  with Berger dead — this one man publicly explained that truth to a live audience on the day before 3,000 Americans died at al-Qaeda’s hands; they died, of course, only because their president repeatedly and knowingly refused to try to defend them.

“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him,” Clinton told a meeting of businessmen in Australia, “but I would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.” [2]

Clinton, for once, told the truth [3], be it only in the first ten words of the quote. While Mr. Wright may be right when he says I am Prussian-like, pious Catholic — I assume that is not a compliment, but it does have a nice ring to it — the women and men of CIA’s Operations Directorate performed magnificently from 1995 until Clinton left office, giving him at least ten opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and — on many of those occasions — several of his senior lieutenants as well. Had Clinton acted, he almost certainly would have foreclosed chances for the 9/11 attack, and he would have made it much less possible for George W. Bush to exploit the citizenry’s post-9/11 anger and ardor for revenge to win support for the mad, Mrs. Clinton-advocated invasion of Iraq.

So go see Mr. Wright’s movie, but keep in mind that if it is anything less than a scathing and fact-based indictment of Clinton’s personal culpability for the 9/11 attack, its casualties, and most of the U.S. disasters in the Muslim world that have followed, the film will be not a drama but a fantasy that defies the truth avowed by the man who knows both the whole truth and the fact of his own guilt, namely, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, with Clinton having told the truth, what is the point of another 9/11 movie? Clinton has acknowledged that 9/11 occurred because of his self-centeredness and moral cowardice, not because of an intelligence failure. It seems that Wright and his Hollywood buddies could save themselves a lot of work by getting Clinton to send a simple Tweet saying “Scheuer has been honest and absolutely correct about the many chances CIA gave me to capture or kill bin Laden. The 9/11 dead are my responsibility, not CIA’s.”

The would-be film makers then could move on to produce a film about the more important question of why Clinton and his senior advisers — Clarke, Tenet, Berger, etc. — thought it far preferable to protect the lives of bin Laden-supporting foreigners than to even try to protect those of American citizens. They might also delve into why Hillary Clinton found it preferable to abet the murder of four U.S. officials in Benghazi rather then tell Americans that her failed and juvenile post-Arab Spring policies, and the lead role she played in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, have brought the United States an ongoing national-security disaster that is almost as great as the invasion of Iraq.

Ah, but to imagine that either the Clintons or contemporary Hollywood would ever tell the truth is, as Sam Spade might say, “the stuff that dreams are made of.”



–2.) One must wonder about the workings of Bill Clinton’s mind. He thought it was not morally correct to defend Americans by killing bin Laden and perhaps 300 al-Qaeda or Taleban supporters, but his moral compass allowed him to be content and happy with allowing 650,000 Iraqi children to die of disease and malnutrition from the sanctions he and his European friends imposed on Saddam, a brutal man but one whose country posed no threat to the United States. Clinton also found it morally acceptable to take part in a Balkans’ war that was a zero threat to U.S. national security and to thereby slaughter Serbs willy nilly from 20,000 feet, a people who posed no threat to the United States. Finally, what on earth could possibly possess Bill Clinton to believe that he was or is in any way a “better” or more decent man than Osama bin Laden? After all, Bin Laden sought to defend Muslims, Clinton allowed Americans to be undefended and murdered. Though they are slender, Mr. Wright ought to turn his talents for psychological analysis on Clinton.

–3.) Given Clinton’s uniquely truthful statement, logic suggests that some of the members of his administration and some of the senior U.S. intelligence officials who testified under oath before the Congress and/or the 9/11 Commission probably are guilty of perjury.



Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Is HULU joining the fake, corrupting, and leftist media to mislead Americans about 9/11?

  1. Eric Morris says:

    While you were at CIA, did anyone in USG ever consider “negotiating” peace with AQ by addressing its demands/concerns in its declarations of war?

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. Never, largely because I do not believe that a single individual above the working-level CIA officers who are focused on the issue has ever bothered to read bin Laden\’s enormous number of statements. They therefore never understood that the United States was the central target only because of its military interventions in the region; its military presence on the Arab Peninsula; its protection of and obedience to Israel; and its defense of the Arab tyrants. There was never a need for formal peace negotiation with al-Qaeda — although UBL offered America and Europe truces on several occasions — all that needed to be done was to recognize that we were fighting a religious war and that the road to security was to get out of the Arab world. In essence, a simple recognition that we did not have a dog in what was designed by UBL to be an intra-Islam war. All that has happened since UBL\’s 1996 declaration of war on the United States — including the evolution of a much more murderous Islamist enemy in the form of ISIS — is attributable to the U.S. national government\’s deliberate refusal to understand what motivates the Islamist enemy to attack America, and its continuation of military interventionism in the Arab/Islamic world. As a result, America today is waging a war against Islam because of the bipartisan governing elite\’s hubris; its addiction to military interventionism; its willingness (eagerness?) to do the bidding of Israel and Saudi Arabia, because of the bribes flowing to them from pro-Israel Jewish-Americans and their organizations and the Saudi royals; and because the U.S. educational system has failed to produce graduates inculcated with commonsense and the priceless capability of critical thinking. There seems to be no way to rectify these problems and so the war with Islam looks ready to keep progressing until we are defeated by its forces abroad and at home. MFS

      • Eric Morris says:

        Thank you very much for the detailed, thorough, yet disheartening response. Regarding education/knowledge, I was the only Veteran for Peace marching in the local Independence Day parade. A Vietnam vet came up to me and thanked me; we started talking about the adulation of the crowds toward the other Vets and military marching. I said the crowd had good intent but no knowledge of what they were actually cheering. His response: “It’s worse, they don’t even want to gain the knowledge.”

  2. Jerry says:

    Please, the ship has gone down and you're squabbling about shared/not shared intel?

    You do your readers a disservice by positing that the official US Fed-Gov endorsed story is anything but a 5 star lie and whether information sharing by our fed agencies would have any impact on the outcome (it wouldn't).

    This was a massive lie sold to the gullible American public by our friends in DC and abetted by the media whores who attack anyone who points out any of the obvious holes in their BS crackpot fantasy to justify massive budget increases and more interventions in the ME.

    Regardless of political persuasion or country of origin one thing is immutable above all: the laws of physics. The paid shills who keep pushing this nonsense would have you believe if your driving your sports car down the highway at 70 MPH and slam into the back of a stalled semi that your car along with the semi would continue down the road at 70 MPH. Right and Mrs. didn't knowingly email classified documents.

    The impact hole at the Pentagon was about 14-16 feet across before the outer wall collapsed. Unfortunately for sellers of the official story there was zero damage to the wall on either side of that impact hole where there should have been massive damage inflicted by the two wing mounted 11,000 lb jet engines which are 37.82 feet apart and the most solid part of the plane. How do two jet engines nearly 38 feet apart fit into a 16 ft. wide hole?

    The list goes on and on and people get away with murder while reaping huge profits.

    • mike says:

      Thanks for writing. I wish I had as much confidence of my unquestionable rightness on this issue as you have on this issue. I have read much of the materials you refer to and a lot of it makes sense to me, though I am not a physics experts nor an engineer. What I am highly confident in, however, is that UBL and AQ conducted the attack; trained to fly the planes, hi-jacked the planes, and claimed responsibility for the attacks. All of this has been buttressed by an enormous number of AQ documents that have been captured by the forces of multiple countries. Frankly, almost all of the data you site are theories, speculations, and scientific formulas. All of that stands in contradiction to what we know in reality rather than in theory. As always, I would never say never, but I am not convinced by anyone on anything when they argue that there can never be a credible challenge to their allegations.

      Why is the issue of my piece important? Because it is a Democratic effort to lie about facts that are nearly impossible to invalidate — based on my experience and the documents I have seen — in order to protect the wretched behavior of Bill Clinton and his party. It also is important for my family and our posterity, and for all of the families and posterities of those who worked themselves to death and risked their lives in an effort to capture or kill UBL and wreck AQ, and those of the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 and all of those of the Marines and soldiers who have been killed or maimed since 9/11. It also is important to be able to present the always murky stuff of history, whenever it is possible, in the clearest possible manner.

      You may be able to prove your contentions fully accurate in the future. If you can, more power to you. For myself, I will standby with the beliefs and positions — based what I can claim to have seen in concrete form — I have written about in the two pieces you are commenting on. MFS

  3. Jusua Kim says:

    Hi sir mike im a follower and a reader of your site thanks for sharing the truth may GOD BLESS you always and your family.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. I appreciate your too-kind comments very much, and am glad to know that you find some of what I write useful. May God also bless you and your always. MFS

  4. jusuakim says:

    Does the judicial branch is under the control of the Democrats? it seems that they are very silent or not doing there job's.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. That is a very good question, and one that I have been thinking about, too. It, of course, could be that Democrats have so thoroughly salted the judiciary with their operatives that the system is blocked at every turn. I think — perhaps think-hope is a better way to phrase it — that Attorney-General Sessions is working with a small group of officers whom he deems loyal and is preparing investigations or indictments for those that merit them, such as the three Clintons, Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Wasserman-Schultz, Susan Rice, John Brennan, and the rest of that criminal crew. Sessions may be one of those now rare individuals — as was Osama bin Laden — who is smart enough to understand the power of both silence and surprise. Perhaps one morning this summer we will awake to find Sessions acting as midwife to the rebirth of the rule of law, and of equality before the law. I suspect that\’s more wishful thinking than a likelihood, but I guess you won\’t blame a guy for hoping. MFS

  5. Andzhelo says:

    Mike i was reading Eric's comment and it got me thinking on a question to add to what he asked. My question is……… Can we draft or even sign a diplomatic treaty with the Taliban or Al Qeada?

    • mike says:

      Thank you for writing. I think it would certainly have been possible if we had declared war on al-Qaeda after bin Laden declared war on America in August, 1996. If we could not have constitutionally declare war on a group, we could have declared war on Afghanistan, thereby we could have signed a treaty with both. No one would have considered doing that as they neither knew, understood or respected the enemy. The easiest way out of the war, however, would have been to get out of the Arab world, as we have no life-and-death interests there, and let our greedy “allies” Israel and the Arab tyrants fend for themselves. MFS

  6. mike phillips says:

    How do you explain tower 7 collapsing?

  7. mike phillips says:

    Israel runs the USA, we don’t do anything without their blessing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *