Help us, Osama bin Laden--you're our only hope!
You may or may not have seen this fucking appalling video that's been circulating.
"Man, I sure hope they kill a lot of people so we have the excuse we need to kill even MORE people!"
I think the most telling part is where Scheuer says that this much longed-for attack will cause us (who's "us," paleface?) to demand that the government protect us "effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary." Not as much force as necessary, or as much military action--as much violence. Most pundits would use a less brutal-sounding word, in order to at least create the illusion of not being bloodthirsty psychopaths. Not Scheuer. He jumps straight to results (carnage--clearly the money shot in his twisted little mind) without stopping at means (military strikes) first. That little slip reveals a lot about his id--and it's really ugly stuff.
It's worth emphasizing again and again: we are living in a country where maniacs like this are considered a legitimate part of our political discourse.
You've also gotta love Beck's response: "Which is why I was thinking [I'm not sure "thinking" is the right word here, Glenn], if I were [bin Laden], that would be the LAST thing I would do right now." So if I'm following the logic here, we need terrorists to attack us to make us attack them to protect ourselves. But those fiendish terrorists are clever devils--instead of attacking us, they won't attack us, and thus prevent us from taking the proper measures to protect ourselves from the attacks that won't be coming because they won't attack us so as to ensure that we don't take the proper measures against the attacks that aren't coming.
And if you think that sentence was convoluted, imagine what it must be like to live in Glenn Beck's head.
"Man, I sure hope they kill a lot of people so we have the excuse we need to kill even MORE people!"
I think the most telling part is where Scheuer says that this much longed-for attack will cause us (who's "us," paleface?) to demand that the government protect us "effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary." Not as much force as necessary, or as much military action--as much violence. Most pundits would use a less brutal-sounding word, in order to at least create the illusion of not being bloodthirsty psychopaths. Not Scheuer. He jumps straight to results (carnage--clearly the money shot in his twisted little mind) without stopping at means (military strikes) first. That little slip reveals a lot about his id--and it's really ugly stuff.
It's worth emphasizing again and again: we are living in a country where maniacs like this are considered a legitimate part of our political discourse.
You've also gotta love Beck's response: "Which is why I was thinking [I'm not sure "thinking" is the right word here, Glenn], if I were [bin Laden], that would be the LAST thing I would do right now." So if I'm following the logic here, we need terrorists to attack us to make us attack them to protect ourselves. But those fiendish terrorists are clever devils--instead of attacking us, they won't attack us, and thus prevent us from taking the proper measures to protect ourselves from the attacks that won't be coming because they won't attack us so as to ensure that we don't take the proper measures against the attacks that aren't coming.
And if you think that sentence was convoluted, imagine what it must be like to live in Glenn Beck's head.
posted by GeoX, one of the GeoX boys. at 2:42 AM
I find this peculiar -- Scheuer was a prominent critic of Bush administration policy for many years. He opposed the Iraq war, and was hounded by many neocons for it. I don't know if he's having a remission, or if he's trying to reestablish his bloodthirst cred, or what.
SK