Today on CNN, Michael Smerconish hosted former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who is more often seen pitching his doomsday fetishes on Fox News. The discussion (video below) centered around how best to respond to the threat posed by ISIS and other terrorist entities. Suffice to say that Scheuer's methods took inhumanity to new lows.

Check out the ALL NEW 2nd volume of my ebook…
Fox Nation vs. Reality, The Fox News Cult Of Ignorance.

See the original version of this article published on NewsCorpse.

Click here to LIKE/SHARE this On Facebook.

While professing to be a non-interventionist, Scheurer complained that Americans don't have the stomach to do what he thinks is necessary to defeat ISIS. His prescription for victory requires going "all in," which means tolerating vast numbers of civilian casualties. He laments that American politicians are not comfortable with that saying "There's not one person out there who's willing to kill a civilian." Of course, he's wrong about that because several Republicans have publicly supported massive military campaigns that would decimate much of Syria. But that may not be enough for Scheuer who, when asked what he meant by "all in" said...

"All in to me would be to take out every piece of infrastructure: hospitals, universities, irrigation systems, that make it impossible for the Islamic State to raise money, to provide electricity, sanitation, potable water. Do exactly what we did to the Germans."

In effect, Scheuer is advocating that the United States commit war crimes. He thinks that hospitals and universities, which are places notable for the absence of combatants, should be explicitly targeted for destruction. He's not merely suggesting that civilian casualties should be tolerated, but that they should be deliberate and aimed at the most vulnerable people. And the other targets he proposed are also notable for having expressly civilian purposes. Irrigation systems serve farmers, not soldiers. Electricity, sanitation, and potable water are likewise services that are used mostly by peaceful families.

Scheuer could have proposed targets like command centers, training facilities, munitions storage, transportation assets, or black market oil operations, but all of his suggestions were predominantly civilian in nature. What's more, his reference to "what we did to the Germans" ignores major differences between World War II and today. We were actually at war with Germany. We are not at war with Syria, and their civilian population is not responsible for terrorism. In fact, they are the victims of it, which accounts for the biggest refugee crisis since WWII. His plan would be more analogous to one that sought to bomb all the Jews in Germany and hope some Nazis were among the dead. And his callous disregard for human life was expressed further in this exchange:

Smerconish: Do you think that the Western world, Americans in particular, would stand by for the film footage that would be shown, on CNN and elsewhere, of the so-called innocent civilian death count?
Scheuer: I don't know if they would. They should. What's the difference? They're not Americans.

Well, that makes everything OK then, doesn't it? The only deaths that matter are those of Americans. Maybe Scheuer would have approved of bombing the Bataclan concert Hall in Paris when the terrorists had taken control of it. We would killed a few terrorists and a few hundred Parisians, but why would that matter? They're not Americans.

This is not the first time that Scheuer has articulated his repulsive philosophy. A few years ago he was on Glenn Beck's Fox News program and outlined his concern that the American people were not sufficiently afraid of future terrorist attacks. He regarded that absence of fear as dangerous complacency. But he had a solution (video): “The 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.” That's right - Scheuer came out in favor of Al Qaeda nuking America.

That is the magnitude of derangement that we're dealing with here. Scheuer is a madman bordering on treason. And it is unconscionable that CNN would provide him a platform for his noxious views. It's bad enough that Fox News does, but at least it's consistent with the rest of their toxic propaganda.