The 24 prophecies
By Thoreau
24 has depicted many things that turned out to be real. They depicted a black President, and now we have one. They depicted (in 2002-2003) oil executives seizing on a terrorist attack to try to get the US to go to war against a Middle Eastern government that had no connection to the attack. And, sure enough, we attacked Iraq. They depicted (in 2006) a lawless President willing to orchestrate a WMD hoax to create a pretext for a land war in an oil-rich part of Asia. (Don’t these guys ever watch the “classic blunders” scene in Princess Bride?) And, um, yeah, that turned out to be real too.
In a few seasons they also had a right wing cabal explaining that unless there was a terrorist attack the American people would never let the government do what is necessary to….stop a terrorist attack. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: Glenn Beck, terrorist sympathizer.
Comment by Ken Shultz —
July 6, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
I don’t agree with this guy, don’t even know who he is, I assume that if he’s a guest on Fox News, he must be full of hot air, etc.
However.
Given the context, I suspect what he was trying to say was that the current administration won’t wake up until there’s another terrorist attack, and then it will be too late. Which is to say, he may have meant the opposite of what’s being advertised up yonder–he wants to prevent/avoid/not have a terrorist attack as much or more than the rest of us.
He still may be a cowardly Chicken Little who’d sell the whole Constitution down the river just to score some points for the Republicans in the next election for all I know, like I said, I don’t know anything about the guy, but given the context, I don’t think he meant that he wants a terrorist attack.
I’m just sayin’.
Comment by Jackmormon —
July 6, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Jeez, Ken, rain on many parades today?
Comment by Eric Martin —
July 6, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
But Ken, he states, emphatically, that he thinks a WMD attack is necessary to wake the government up to finally defend the nation with enough “violence” and with enough of a disregard for ethical and legal norms.
Beck agrees and says, basically: Yeah, but that’s why Osama won’t do that.
The logic is priceless.
Presumably, the government protecting us should include protecting us from such a catastrophic event. But Scheuer thinks that event would actually do us some good and help us to protect ourselves from…what exactly? A WMD attack? Being taken over by Islamofascism? What could be worse – at least, what worse scenario is so probable that a WMD attack would be an acceptable tradeoff?
Comment by mpowell —
July 7, 2009 @ 7:26 am
What could be worse – at least, what worse scenario is so probable that a WMD attack would be an acceptable tradeoff?
Being ruled by liberals?
Easy answers to easy questions…
Comment by Gary Farber —
July 7, 2009 @ 10:47 am
“I don’t agree with this guy, don’t even know who he is”
Michael Scheuer. HTH.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 7, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Do you remember your mindset on September 12? Do you remember everyone else’s?
Michael Scheuer and Glenn Beck think this would be a better country, and that our political leadership would make better decisions, if we were all walking around like that all the time.
They can’t defend their violent, war-loving, torture-loving policies rationally, so they want us all to be angry, terrified, and irrational.
Comment by b-psycho —
July 7, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
The guy that wrote “Imperial Hubris” is now openly hoping for a terrorist attack to justify…what? A war more chockful of warryness?
Odd. I thought the entire point of the book was that, unless the US was willing to go genocide, we should stop meddling over there at all? Now he WANTS a reason to do it?
Comment by KCinDC —
July 7, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Apparently your mistake was assuming he agrees with you that the US shouldn’t consider genocide.
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
July 8, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
I cannot excuse Scheuer, but we all know that Beck did a lot of drugs — alcohol, acid, heroin (!) — so it’s safe to say he’s not all there. Cut him some slack, then.
Further, even being a Mormon, he’s not the most whacked face of Fox News. Greta van Susteren has that distinction — DIANETICS.
Comment by Glaivester —
July 9, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
They depicted (in 2006) a lawless President willing to orchestrate a WMD hoax to create a pretext for a land war in an oil-rich part of Asia.
As the Fraggles said on Robot Chicken, they have to work on the “pre” part of “premonition.”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 10, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Harumph. Always with the appeals to authority.