HOPING FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK.
Yesterday, Glenn Beck guest and former CIA official Michael Scheuer openly hoped for a terrorist attack on the United States, saying, "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. ... 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 nodded solemnly.
This is the same Michael Scheuer who, a few months ago, played patriotism police arguing that anyone who didn't support the United States using torture to interrogate terrorist suspects was anti-American ... now he's begging for a terrorist attack on the United States. This is a pretty awesome example of how the right conflates its political interests with the interests of the country as a whole. If there's no terrorist attack, then Americans are safe. But Scheuer can't be right if there's no terrorist attack. And Scheuer being right is actually more important than Americans staying alive.
Torture apologists have tiptoed around the edge of this argument without actually saying so for some time; Leon Panetta walked back his observation about Dick Cheney, that "it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point," but as Scheuer and Beck proved yesterday, this is really how some people feel.
This gets to the essential creepiness about Beck's emotional display introducing his whole 9/12 project--the man wasn't weeping because he wished the country was as "unified" as it was after 9/11; he was weeping because the country is no longer in a such a state of petrified fear that it will acquiesce to whatever extreme measures the right deems necessary. Beck wasn't crying for the country; he was crying for himself, crying because people are no longer frightened enough to agree with everything he has to say. Understand, he only wants to hurt you because he loves you.
But understand, this is not unpatriotic. You can wish all manner of horrors on this country, but as long as these horrors might serve a specific political agenda, you're not being unpatriotic. Unpatriotic is a public health-care plan. Unpatriotic is a judge modifying sub-prime mortgage loans to keep a roof over someone's head. Unpatriotic is phosphate-free detergent. Patriotic is wishing for a terrorist attack on the United States.
Patriotism is dead, long live patriotism.
-- A. Serwer
Feeds: 



COMMENTS (23)
The anti-patriotism of he American Right is becoming eerily reminiscent of the French Right of the 1930s.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 1, 2009 10:46 AM
It isn't quite fair to say Sheuer is from "the right". He is nutty, for sure. But he was very much against the Iraq war, and was a harsh critic of the Bush administrations foreign policy.
More than anything, he is bloodthirsty.
Posted by: SteveS | July 1, 2009 10:54 AM
You know what would have been great?
If President George Bush had captured Osama bin Laden instead of letting him get away with destroying the World Trade Center and killing thousands of Americans.
I find it absolutely incredible that no one on the left ever points out that these monstrous a**es dealt with 9/11 by invading the wrong country and letting the bad guy get away.
Seriously, why should I be impressed Bush tortured a goatherder? ANYBODY can torture a goatherder. Seriously, a rich dude could fly into Afghanistan and hire guys to take pretty much anybody off the streets, put 'em on a plane, and torture them just for kicks. It's not all that impressive an accomplishment.
The real test was capturing bin Laden. They failed, failed, failed.
Posted by: anonymiss | July 1, 2009 11:00 AM
In order to be protected against terrorist attacks, we need to be attacked by terrorists.
This guy isn't from the right, he's from the other side of the looking glass.
Posted by: hells littlest angel | July 1, 2009 11:02 AM
I gonna have to go ahead and agree with SteveS completely.
Scheuer paints cold war-era thinking, especially as regards our policy towards Israel.
Like the wingnuts, he is big into the idea of the "liberal-pacifist media" and he clearly doesn't censor himself beyond (I assume) not dropping sensitive material.
I once say him tell a Fox News host that we will lose to the Taliban because we don't have the political will to send in 500K troops and keep them there as long as it takes.
In short, I think he's certainly extremist in foreign policy terms but more of a wild card than a wingnut.
I would encourage anyone to read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars to get an idea of Scheuer's history there in the Wilson era.
Posted by: SamInMpls | July 1, 2009 11:49 AM
Brilliant!
Posted by: shoeshineboy | July 1, 2009 11:55 AM
The anti-patriotism of he American Right is becoming eerily reminiscent of the French Right of the 1930s.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
I studied the the French Right of the 1930s for my Master degree In History here in Montreal. Your comment is exactly right.
Posted by: Plum P | July 1, 2009 12:14 PM
The neo-con fantasy (and make no mistake, Beck is one) is a nuclear strike by Muslims (or Mexicans) followed by a police state where everyone is monitored and dissent is crushed.
Why? Because they are crazy.
I'm just surprised they admit it on national television.
Posted by: Chris from Maine | July 1, 2009 12:15 PM
I only hope that when the next "terrorist" attack comes and a "major weapon" is deployed, the American public demands a forensic examination of ALL THE EVIDENCE that would make CSI Miami look like a Creationist's middle school science project.
Posted by: John | July 1, 2009 12:42 PM
PDB: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S."
Patriot: "Ex-cellent!"
Posted by: ed | July 1, 2009 12:49 PM
As more people have been pointing out lately, for wingnuts, everything is All About Them. Being "right" is more important than Americans' safety? Sure! After all, the important thing is that They Were Right.
These people are scary, narcissistic children in grown-up bodies.
Posted by: mgmonklewis | July 1, 2009 1:01 PM
The neo-con fantasy (and make no mistake, Beck is one) is a nuclear strike by Muslims (or Mexicans) followed by a police state where everyone is monitored and dissent is crushed.
Well, of course. How else are we going to preserve our freedoms??
Posted by: Lolly | July 1, 2009 1:05 PM
Guys... I think this is satire?? I think you have to remember that Glenn Beck is a comedian. Glenn Beck doesn't want America attack, of course not. He just sees, as many do, that Americans are sleeping to the fact that Obama is destroying our national defense system, as well as our economy.
Posted by: Bobbi | July 1, 2009 1:23 PM
Re: Bobbi -- Glenn Beck may be a failed comedian, but this is not satire. Conservatives and right-wingers do not get satire, as it appears you have just demonstrated.
Posted by: mgmonklewis | July 1, 2009 1:28 PM
The Beck/Scheuer exchange isn't satire. When Colbert does it, that's satire. Watch any Colbert Report, Bobbi?
Posted by: Michael in Maine | July 1, 2009 1:31 PM
It is NOT satire; it is utter stupidity. Period.
Obama is destroying our national defense system? By increasing defense spending? Interesting. Some wingnut might accuse you of treason for such an insult to our armed forces.
Posted by: BH | July 1, 2009 1:42 PM
Of course it's "all about them" just like Iran is "all about them". That's why they bitched and moaned about Obama not talking "tough enough" about the crackdown over there. Their complaints had absolutely nothing to do with what would be more effective foreign policy - it was more about feeding their pathological narcissism, and what makes them feel better about themselves.
So yes, like CHeney these people are hoping for death and destruction here in the US. What Panetta said was absolutely spot-on, and it pained me greatly to read that he had to 'walk it back' just because rightwing nutjobs got their hackles raised.
Posted by: Bob Loblaw | July 1, 2009 4:38 PM
Nice dada reference at the end there. Very appropriate.
Posted by: Awkward Silence | July 1, 2009 5:48 PM
It's an interesting question.
In 2009, Michael Scheuer says that only a massive terrorist attack on the US will be enough to rouse the incumbent president to protect the nation adequately.
In 1999, Scheuer was head of the CIA's bin Laden tracking unit. He was immensely frustrated at the Clinton administration's perceived lack of focus on the capture of bin Laden (see, among others, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll).
It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Scheuer felt the same way in 1999 that he does in 2009: that a Democratic president was not taking counter-terrorism seriously enough, and that only a major terrorist attack would shake matters up enough.
The difference is that, in 1999, Scheuer was in an excellent position to do something about it.
Posted by: ajay | July 2, 2009 4:57 AM
Obama is destroying our national defense system? By increasing defense spending? Interesting. Some wingnut might accuse you of treason for such an insult to our armed forces.
Posted by: ball valve | November 18, 2009 12:45 AM
Are you want to own the cheapest Battery Help?
Battery Help
Posted by: Battery Help | November 29, 2009 9:47 PM
everybody wants to be more fashion,but thats not easy to join,you most have the fashion world view first,then you could read the fashion news,Magazines and so on. through these you can be the fashion man.
Posted by: jewelry fashion review | December 21, 2009 3:37 AM
Fitch store in general abercrombie and fitch , everything a good matrimony before marriage have nothing to retain the preceding "female mad batch - abercrombie" part of the two is the first home in new york city a horde promotion sportswear for men and it is a successful lawyer, that is, ezra fitch.Ezra fitch in a charge over a very intricate to read from the abercrombie is obstinate to read and long abercrombie & fitch. He's also very good brand hollister, including abercrombie mens and abercrombie womens, abercrombie hollister, Ruehl No.925. Has become a fashionable personage's first choice, abercrombie outlet is all over the world, of course, is also expected to 2009 New Arrivals.
Posted by: abercrombie hollister | December 31, 2009 1:45 AM