For commentary on the recent uprisings in the Middle East, The Washington Post recently turned to former CIA official Michael Scheuer, publishing an op-ed by Scheuer headlined, "Why the Mideast revolts will help al-Qaeda."
Why the Post thought it would be a good idea to give him such a platform -- which also includes a Web chat this morning -- is a mystery. As Media Matters has noted, Scheuer has a long history of extreme rhetoric, once stating that "[t]he only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."
Scheuer, a Fox News regular, has also said that "we're not killing enough people in Afghanistan" and that Democratic administrations are "pro-terrorist." He has also launched numerous personal attacks on President Obama, stating that Obama "obviously does not care" about "protecting Americans" and calling him a "coward."
Despite this, the Post still gave Scheuer a prominent platform to discuss the recent events in the Middle East. At this point, what would Scheuer need to say for the Post to decide he's not a credible analyst?