3-2-1 Beck: Another Bin Laden Attack Is America’s Only Hope

It’s come to this…Glenn Beck and his guest Michael Scheuer have finally admitted their deepest yearnings. The ticking clock at the beginning of Beck’s show takes on a whole new meaning. It is a suggestion for a remedy for our diseased nation that is so far gone now that there is only one solution: Another 9/11.

BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won’t see the error of their ways?

SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not — 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. Because it’s going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only — it’s an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

BECK: Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

I’m sure Bin Laden appreciates Beck’s advice. But isn’t it a bit shocking that Beck’s counsel to Bin Laden is to refrain from attacking the U.S. because it would benefit the country by motivating Americans to demand protection against such an attack? So he is saying that, while it is contrary to Bin Laden’s interests to attack us, it is in accord with America’s (and Beck’s) interests. He actually believes that the slaughter of untold thousands of innocent Americans is not only beneficial, but is “the only chance we have.”

Beck is now adding his voice to those of The Republican Advance Team For Terrorism. This is a group led by Dick Cheney who has been busily promoting the notion that America is “less safe” under the Obama administration so it would be a good time to attack. With Beck’s participation, it is now not only a good time to attack, it is also good policy.

And this guy is still on the air because…..???

[Update] The professional journalists of television news, whose contributions to the public store of knowledge are so indispensable, failed to cover this story. A former CIA terrorism specialist and a prominent cable news host agree that the U.S. needs to be attacked, and not one TV newsroom finds this newsworthy. The only place a television viewer would have seen this story is on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I don’t ever want to hear anyone complain again about The Daily Show being regarded as superior to the conventional media.

Advertisement:

15 thoughts on “3-2-1 Beck: Another Bin Laden Attack Is America’s Only Hope

  1. beck is despicable… im sick of his violent fantasies. this guy has the capability to do and say whatever he wants, and not get in trouble, just like oreilly and hannity. all thanks to old man murdoch and his big corrupt media empire.

    • The funny thing is that Beck spent the first 20 minutes of his show today spewing some nonsense about how it is the left who are advocating violence. His evidence is a book called “The Coming Insurrection” that he asserts is a leftist manual for revolution (even though it explicitly rejects the left).

      Beck wants to change the subject from the mainstream advocates of violence like himself, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc., to some obscure tract that no one on the left has even heard of. How can he compare an unknown, french-language, pamphlet that has no significant distribution, to international media behemoths like Fox News?

  2. So Beck and this Scheuer person recommend the infection before injecting the antibodies. That makes sense – if death is the goal.

  3. only in America can someone say in order to “save”America-we need to be attacked again and get away with it

    • “Only in America REPUBLICANS can someone say THAT in order to “save” America, we need to be attacked again – and get away with it”

      There: fixed it for you

      ;-)

    • Thanks for that link. Although I’ll note that it didn’t happen until two days later and it was part of their “Punch Line” segment wherein they feature a joke of some sort. So the segment was more about Jon Stewart than Beck and Scheuer.

      Still, that remains the only mention of it I’ve seen in the conventional TV media.

  4. This is bizarre to the extreme. A guest on the show makes the argument that it would take an attack by Bin Laden on the US to motivate an uprising by Americans. Glen Beck responds that he speculates Bin Laden would likely avoid an attack to specifically to prevent such an uprising by Americans. Somehow you have taken the leap that the suggestion to avoid an attack on the US is “because it would benefit the country by motivating Americans to demand protection against such an attack?”. I guess the point wasn’t to be true or fair, but to try to find something inflammatory against the ‘pre-approved’ targets, regardless of how weak it was or downright false. I’d imagine it’s kind of like telling a racist joke at a KKK meeting, even if the joke isn’t funny or doesn’t make sense, your peers give you a few points (as seen above) for trying and having the right sentiment. I can’t speak for the KKK myself, but maybe one of you can ask former klan leader Sen. Robert Byrd before he keels over.

    • You’re not paying attention. Watch the video:

      Scheuer makes a repulsive remark that another Bin Laden attack is “the only chance we have.”

      Any sane person would recoil in disgust, but Beck doesn’t even bother to politely disagree.

      In fact, his immediate response begins with “Which is why…” That is an affirmative response. It implies agreement and then seeks to expand on the comment.

      And by stating that Bin Laden ought not to attack because it would motivate Americans, Beck further agrees with Scheuer’s premise that such an attack would have that effect and is therefore necessary, albeit poor strategy from Bin Laden’s perspective. (Awfully considerate of Beck to be looking out for Osama’s interests there, isn’t it?)

      Get it now?

  5. I do get it now, but not because of what you said. I originally thought you clipped this video and posted it, but now see that this is a Media Matters clip that some pawn of George Soros passed to you (the pawn’s pawn). I saw the ENTIRE exchange, perhaps you should too instead of freely ingesting what you are fed and then you might ‘get it’. Beck’s point was that the current government, Democrats & Republicans alike, are doing so much damage to the nation that the last thing any enemy would want to do is attack, but would rather just let us continue what he assumes they also see as damage to ourselves. The full exchange gave the sense that he was probably reaching for a sense of extreme irony (our enemies now won’t attack us because we are our own worst enemy, or something like that) and he seemed bent on highlighting his own ideas over those of his guest, very happy to use the guest’s comments as a segue back to his own thesis. Main point is that he didn’t come out and call for a Bin Laden attack on the US as the country’s only hope, as you falsely suggest. If you are truly bothered by this why not go after Scheuer instead of Beck? I know, I know, they didn’t pull that string. It’s very entertaining how suddenly Beck has become a Soros/Media Matters primary target and to watch the feeble scrambling as they send their drones out to do their bidding. I have to say that this sort of nonsense only helps those that are targeted.

    • Wow! If you really interpret the Beck/Scheuer segment that way, there is nothing more for me to say.

      And your recitation of rightist dogma re: Soros and Media Matters is hilarious. Talk about drones…

  6. Bwah-ha-ha, oh you got me with that one. I’m so wrong that you’re not going say another word to me. I wouldn’t expect you’d have more to say. As noted, I saw the entire exchange, you got the edited Media Matters clip from the machine. It has long been a common ploy to label a connection as ‘rightist dogma’, ‘communist’ or ‘ imperialist propaganda’ to mark something as untouchable & beyond consideration among the true believers. My advice is for you to stay away. Don’t look, you wouldn’t like what you’d see. Since you have nothing more to say, I’ll leave your little site for good. I try to have an open mind and look far & wide for alternate views, but nothing but jackboots in lockstep here. If I’ve been hilarious, laugh it up with your like-minded buddies at my expense here at your own little klan meeting (and if you can’t think of anything funny to say, just use the right slur against the right kind of person and you’ll get points for trying).

    • First of all Gorgie, I didn’t say I wasn’t going to say another word to you. I said there is nothing more for me to say with regard to your fantastical interpretation of the Beck/Scheuer dialogue. And there still isn’t. But I guess you’ll never see this response because you’ve left my little site for good.

      For the record, everyone has access to the full segment on the InterTubes if they want it, but there is nothing in the rest of the video that alters the context of the clip above – and you didn’t bother to offer any examples despite your insistence that they’re there.

      And I’m quite sure you have a wide open mind. That’s why you respond with references to jackboots and klans. That’s just the sort of attitude that open-minded people generally employ.

  7. These guys hate America so much they would rather we destroy ourselves from within than suffer another terrorist attack.

    Doesn’t that qualify as treason?

Comments are closed.