Glenn Beck | News

Glenn Beck Guest: Only An Attack from Bin Laden Can Save America


Glenn Beck nods his approval of guest Michael Scheuer's apparent request to Osama bin Laden for a major attack against the U.S. in order to protect it from immigrants:

"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 grass-roots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. 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."


Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Everyone knows the only way Republicans can win anything is to prey on fear. You know they want another attack to exploit.

    Posted by: MT | Jul 1, 2009 9:39:50 AM

  2. Beck also did his " . . . Obama, er, Osama . . ." conflation during this segment.
    Disgusting and so irresponsible.

    Posted by: RichardR | Jul 1, 2009 9:44:53 AM

  3. I can't believe Bigfoot would say such nonsense.

    Posted by: Bill | Jul 1, 2009 10:09:26 AM

  4. How is it that the GOP can wish failure, destruction and death on America under Obama, yet if anyone just criticized Bush/Cheney they were labeled as unpatriotic and un-American?

    Posted by: JTlvr | Jul 1, 2009 10:14:51 AM

  5. How stupid and psychotic. This is like saying that the only thing that can cure cancer is death, and then praying for your grandma to die so that she can get better.

    Sorry, but that sounds like that guy is obviously rooting for Osama bin Laden. Someone needs to check his ass out.

    Posted by: paul c | Jul 1, 2009 10:48:41 AM

  6. And that, folks, has crossed the line into treason.

    Posted by: Rad | Jul 1, 2009 10:58:04 AM

  7. What would have happened if a Democrat had said such things! Can you IMAGINE??

    Posted by: clint | Jul 1, 2009 11:01:35 AM

  8. Treason!

    Posted by: 1fanboy2many | Jul 1, 2009 11:28:52 AM

  9. If you look at his bio he has consistently stated that our government won't do what is necessary to deal with the danger that is Osama Bin Laden. He actually has quite a bit of credibility as he worked for the first Osama task force under Clinton. I don't think he was saying he wants us to be attacked nor is he making a statement about the current administration specifically. He is merely saying; as I have as well; that our government won't do what we really need to do until something more horrific than 9/11 happens. As he has researched Bin Laden for years for the CIA he came to the conclusion that Bin Laden and his organization is very patient and will act when we have been lulled into a belief there is no risk anymore.

    He seems to believe; according to his own writings; that 9/11 was the fault of our Intelligence organizations. Specifically, the head of the CIA under Clinton, Richard Clark. For some reason Clark or Clinton wouldn't approve the elimination of Bin Laden; if true that is certainly disturbing in retrospect. Additionally, he his pretty hard on Bush's Iraq policy as he seems to imply that it was unnecessary and took our eye of the real problem.

    He did a very bad job of saying what I think he was saying in the video attached. It comes off a bit nutty.

    Posted by: Jason | Jul 1, 2009 11:34:24 AM

  10. can we deport Glenn Beck now?

    Posted by: ZnSD | Jul 1, 2009 11:40:32 AM

  11. Once again, Faux News endorsing something to destroy America. The power of the freedom of hate speech, available to all Americans too stupid to realize it's destructive powers.

    Posted by: 2nd Class Citizen Class | Jul 1, 2009 12:19:57 PM

  12. this guy on drugs or something?

    Posted by: Paul | Jul 1, 2009 1:19:52 PM

  13. This is high treason if I've ever heard it.

    Posted by: LARS | Jul 1, 2009 1:26:31 PM

  14. Let me be the first to say that Jason is an offensive idiot. For a second I thought I was lurking at the depths of the free republic, not surfing Towleroad. Claiming we need to massive terrorist attack to beef up our security in preparation for a terrorist attack is disgusting, despicable, and doesn't even make sense. You must have been a big fan of 9/11, Jason. While the rest of us were mourning, I assume you were just giddy with joy.

    Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jul 1, 2009 1:54:40 PM

  15. Sounds like this guy was watching a rerun of the TV show 'Jericho' and thought to himself what a great idea!

    Posted by: Rob | Jul 1, 2009 2:14:42 PM

  16. Aaron seems to lack basic reading comprehension. Jason isn't calling for a terrorist attack on America. He is saying that it is an unfortunate truth that America only responds to threats and dangers AFTER something bad has already happened.

    While it may not reflect your point of view (or mine for that matter-- I'm not an American and I haven't really formed any opinions on the Obama administration's defense system), you don't need to jump up and proclaim, "OH MY GOD I'M OFFENDED." Stop calling people idiots, half-wit.

    Posted by: mark | Jul 1, 2009 5:11:08 PM

  17. I would like to give the man the benefit of the doubt, seeing as he does seem to have an extensive career in dealing specifically with issues revolving around Osama and Western-muslim relations, but in the video he just comes across as a nut using the fear of a foreign attack on the U.S. as a means to control our foreign polocies.

    "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."

    He seems to be endorsing the possibility of a foreign attack in order to "wake" up American politicians so they can "protect" the American populace. He even advocates violence. I guess Irag, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act just didn't do it for him.

    I read his bio on wiki and his comments on Fox just seem to run counter to his previous comments on Osama and the western world's involvement in Islamic relations.

    Posted by: Leonard Jones | Jul 1, 2009 7:41:45 PM

  18. i'm with aaron. and i'm not giving this idiot the benefit of a doubt. and i'm not believing everything i read in Wiki. it's just consumer-generated content, like these comments. i'll go with what i heard with my own ears. you're only as good as what you say today, to my face. this guy, and Beck, are dangerous.

    Posted by: casey | Jul 1, 2009 10:25:26 PM

  19. I'm too tired to extensively reply, but after reading Jason's post a second time, I completely stand by what I said. If you think we need a terrorist attack to prepare our national security, than the logical progression is: (1) Our nation will remain unprotected until an attack, (2) You wish for our nation to be protected from said and future attacks, (3) For our sake of our nation as a whole, we would benefit from an attack.

    Forget your Orwellian doublespeak, the message is clear.

    Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jul 1, 2009 10:57:26 PM

  20. get some rest, Aaron. it's not you, it's them! : )

    Posted by: casey | Jul 1, 2009 11:26:01 PM

  21. Any presumption that we're getting soft and unprepared for an attack is a GOP ploy that conveniently forgets the intelligence the White House had---and ignored---prior to 9/11. They did nothing with the warnings they had. Moreover, we now have far more people on the ground in countries and among groups that pose threats, and we have the support of many other countries (Britain, Spain, and others) that have also suffered attacks on their soil.

    This makes it sound like our intelligence agencies are completely inept, and that we need to be bombed again to make them better and us safe. If that didn't work after 9/11, why would it work now? It's twisted, inscrutable logic. If our intelligence isn't any better after 8 years of post-9/11 investments, it will never get any better.

    There's also the off chance that some of our former enemies have cooled down a bit in the face of our military force and new, non-asshole president.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jul 1, 2009 11:55:43 PM

  22. What's really scary is that Scheuer was the chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Issue Station. How do we have people in the CIA who want us to get attacked?

    In a satirical response to this, the National Inquisition has a series of tips to help save America by aiding the terrorists.

    Posted by: Allan Piper | Jul 3, 2009 8:21:22 AM

Post a comment


« «Judge to Allow D.C. Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages to Go Ahead« «