In October 2012, a troubling episode unfolded involving Michael F. Scheuer, a former CIA officer. Scheuer became the target of a covert email campaign aimed at discrediting him. Accusations of anti-Semitism and mental instability emerged in an effort to remove him from his position at Georgetown University and bar him from appearances on FOX News. Scheuer pointed the finger at Gabriel Schoenfeld, who was then advising Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign and was a former editor at the neoconservative magazine Commentary.
Fast forward to today, and the ramifications of that event continue to ripple through political commentary and media practice. Recently, a resurfaced tweet from Bill Kristol, a well-known neoconservative commentator, has drawn renewed attention. Kristol offered a defense of neoconservative principles, but now his words seem misaligned with how those principles were applied, particularly in light of the Scheuer controversy. Critics have remarked, “I have literally never seen a post age WORSE than this one from Bill Kristol in 2021.” The ridicule surrounding Kristol’s comment underscores an evolving reckoning with the relationships between media narratives, foreign policy, and commentary, especially during the Bush and Romney administrations.
The email campaign against Scheuer started with anonymous messages sent to various stakeholders, including FOX News executives and members of the Georgetown faculty. Scheuer detailed this organized effort, which he believed was motivated by his political viewpoints. One email to Georgetown’s deans raised concerns about Scheuer’s reputation, citing his alleged behavior reported in the Weekly Standard, and even noted a dismissive response from his director. Such overt attempts to derail his career indicate a troubling trend of vilifying critical voices—especially those who challenge the status quo.
The focus of the smear campaign revolved around claims that Scheuer held anti-Semitic beliefs due to his critiques of U.S. foreign policy influenced by pro-Israel interests. His blunt remarks about American interventions in the Middle East being driven by a strategic alliance with Israel earned him both enemies and headlines. Despite this backlash, he previously contributed to FOX News and consulted for the Jamestown Foundation until orchestrated efforts led to his exile from these roles as well.
In an effort to seek accountability, Scheuer wrote to Kevin Madden, spokesperson for Romney’s campaign, asking if the campaign had knowledge of or endorsed the attacks against him. Madden’s noncommittal response—offering no verification or denial of Schoenfeld’s involvement—left Scheuer interpreting the silence as complicity. He later communicated to colleagues, “It is clear that the Romney campaign either sanctioned or turned a blind eye to Mr. Schoenfeld’s smear campaign.” This reflects a troubling trend where political operatives remain shielded from consequences while attacking dissenters.
While Georgetown did not publicly recognize the campaign, it reportedly put pressure on Scheuer internally. Though he maintained his adjunct position for a time, he gradually disappeared from the FOX News circuit, attributing this change to the relentless smear tactics. One of the anonymous emails sent to Scheuer declared, “You won’t be autographing any employment contracts at Jamestown Foundation, FOX News, CNN… It’s a nightmare to be you.” This showcases the methodical approach to not just silence a critical voice but to systematically blacklist him from institutions that previously valued his insights.
Though Schoenfeld has never admitted to orchestrating this campaign, evidence suggests there was communication with him among the emails. One email mentioned him directly, indicating his involvement in orchestrating negative narratives. This scenario reveals a broader strategy among certain neoconservative elements to undermine critics of U.S.-Israel relations, especially those who hold public influence. It signals a move toward soft censorship, where pressure tactics—rather than legislative means—serve to silence dissenters within educational and media institutions.
As this incident unravels, it raises profound questions about how political narratives are shaped and contested. It sheds light on the targeting of individual critics, the use of media platforms to dictate stories, and the indirect coercion exercised over academic and media establishments. Such tactics are not isolated and mimic patterns seen in the broader struggle for influence and opinion where public discourse is stifled.
Reflecting on Kristol’s 2021 endorsement of the neoconservative cause, it becomes evident that the realities of neoconservative engagement often differ sharply from the image it projects. His assertions now seem detached from the methods employed by some within that camp, where manipulating institutions to quell opposing views was not just a possibility but a practiced reality. The backlash he faces today is rooted in these contradictions, revealing a narrative where proclaimed ideals can mask personal vendettas.
The Scheuer saga serves as a cautionary tale amid a shifting GOP foreign policy landscape. The skepticism of interventionism that has taken root post-Iraq War contrasts sharply with the tactics historically used to suppress dissenting voices through organized smear campaigns rather than open debates. This troubling history offers insight into the lengths some factions within the political sphere will go to maintain control over the narrative.
In an age where social media keeps past missteps on permanent display, the internet retains a long memory. The unfavorable reevaluation of Kristol’s 2021 tweet is not merely a matter of ideology; it highlights a political class that has prioritized silencing opponents over engaging them in productive discourse. This legacy of circumvention and suppression casts a long shadow over the motivations of political players and their enablers.
"*" indicates required fields
