Dispatches from the Culture Wars

What a vile troll!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | July 2, 2009 9:33 AM

The idea that Glenn Beck was thinking this weekend about the strategy he would choose if he were Osama Bin Laden sheds new light on his entire persona.

Posted by: Odie | July 2, 2009 9:41 AM

Why does Glenn Beck hate America?

Rt

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 2, 2009 10:03 AM

I'm amazed at how often conservative republicans would allow the country to burn rather than change their ideology.

Posted by: GregB | July 2, 2009 10:17 AM

I do not understand Glen Beck's logic regarding his quip, "If I were him (bin Laden?), that's the last thing I would do (attack America)." What's Beck's point?

Regarding Beck's guest: Michael Scheuer, is very influential amongst foreign policy experts and somewhat influential with some of those with power for good reasons:

1) During the 1990s and onward, he was the CIA's top expert on al Qaeda in terms of managing the raw data and providing full blown analysis of their grievances, motivations, operational capabilities, and objectives. He acted as a real-life version of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan; only where the real life presidents ignored his threat assessments before and even after 9/11 until he left the CIA a couple of years after 9/11. There are few people in the world who know al Qaeda's leaders as well as him or understand both the threats they pose to us and the quality of our response. He was a particularly good critic of Bush's response to al Qaeda and our efforts to secure future prime targets along with criticizing Bush's idiotic, jingoistic understanding of the Middle East.
2) He wrote "Imperial Hubris*", which effectively reported on both Clinton and Bush's failures regarding al Qaeda. He focused far more on Bush than Clinton, where his criticism was somewhat mild.
3) He opposed the war on Iraq. His predictions in "Imperial Hubris" on how this would increase Iran's power and drive more recruits into al Qaeda and dilute our power in the Middle East were prescient. (This book was published in 2004).
4) He is extremely effective at criticizing American neoconservatives and American policies supporting Israel, especially those American policies which arguably support Israel's objectives over those of America's.

What I continually find disconcerting about Scheuer is his actual descriptions of where we are and why we are where we are in the Middle East are extremely good. However, he continually is a guest on Fox where he offers himself up as a foil to Fox's news analysts in order for them to spin a story which is very different than what Scheuer argues on his own when provided ample time to make his arguments. I do not get this unless it's sucking up to behind the scenes figures from the right to protect him given he was the architect of Bush's extraordinary rendition program.

*My review of his book was the best I've read up to the time I wrote the linked review. "Looming Tower" which was published after Scheuer's book provides a superior history of al Qaeda.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 2, 2009 10:49 AM

My review of his book was the best I've read

Modest, aren't we.

Teasing aside, it was cool to see your picture with the review. At last I have a face to go with the name.

Posted by: Abby Normal | July 2, 2009 11:09 AM

These idiots will have nothing left in their rage reservoirs when an actual election finally comes up.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 2, 2009 11:47 AM

What Beck and Scheuer ultimately fail to understand is that we could bomb Bin Laden and his supporters in Pakistan into dust, but the U.S. would still never be "safe" against a cataclysmic attack.

The entire notion of a "safe" America is a lie. No matter what the color on Tom Ridge's moronic national security scale, there is no such thing as a magical force field that will protect this country from all harm.

Posted by: CHV | July 2, 2009 12:55 PM

Fox, Beck, and Scheuer are openly advocating domestic terrorism by going down this path, hoping some wingnut will take them up on the offer when Osama fails to do so. They need to be called out on this. Loudly.

Posted by: Robert Faber | July 2, 2009 2:50 PM

@Robert Faber

Say what? How would Beck and his fellow conservatives benefit by proving the hype about the dangers of right-wing extremism? Their cause stands to suffer greatly if what you suggest were true. Sorry, I don't buy your fear mongering any more than theirs.

Posted by: Abby Normal | July 2, 2009 3:17 PM

It's not logic, it's wistful memories of the post 9-11 honeymoon that has them pining for another attack. After 9-11, Bush, like any inanimate carbon rod that happened to be in the WH, experienced a huge surge in support which allowed a number of conservative policies to be pushed through Congress.

Conservatives/Republicans mistook that popular surge for popular policies and party, ignore the fact that the majority has not only moved on but feels they kinda blew it, and they desperately want it back. So they think another attack, the bigger the better, will produce the same positive result, for them of course, and even though they know better, from time to time they just can't help it and that desire slips out.

Posted by: DarkSyde | July 2, 2009 3:25 PM

I'm actually rather surprised about your 1) Michael Heath. That's a remarkably smart concern for osama to have about the arab world's development. Along with Russia, they are mostly coasting on oil wealth which will end in the not too distant future one way or another. Although of course I'd imagine his solution is something along the lines of 4), a unified theocratic government which would be disastrous, at least if it was possible in the first place.

As for Scheuer, if he's really as smart as you imply, he should be more then capable of understanding what he's doing and why it's wrong. Since I doubt that any right-wingers could really protect him legally (or that he'll need any protection the way things are going) I don't see why he would do this. Unless he isn't as opposed to right-wing policies as you seem to believe.

Posted by: Coriolis | July 2, 2009 4:30 PM

Coriolis stated:

As for Scheuer, if he's really as smart as you imply, he should be more then capable of understanding what he's doing and why it's wrong. Since I doubt that any right-wingers could really protect him legally (or that he'll need any protection the way things are going) I don't see why he would do this. Unless he isn't as opposed to right-wing policies as you seem to believe.

Faber and others have implied Scheuer is just another right-winger. I realize you are not in your post. With the exception of his occassionally being a foil to a right wing Fox pundit which I repeat is disconcerting, I just do not see him as right wing. He quit the CIA during the Bush years partially out of frustration for how the Bush and the CIA reacted to 9/11 and both of his books heavily criticize Bush, the GOP, and neocons. While he's critical of Clinton, it's not nearly as strong as his ire directed to those on to those on the right. In fact his arguments in 2004, which were more consistent with Sen. Kerry's campaign rhetoric, helped validate my support for Kerry in spite of my perspective he was a very mediocre candidate (while seeing Bush as a horribly dangerous candidate).

Going only with what is presented in the clip Ed blogs to, I'd say Scheuer's frustration on our approach to al Qaeda continues and has him going at least occasionally batty, but I certainly do not think this a right-wing/left-wing issue for him unless I saw evidence of it. Especially given the arguments he makes in his book, his attacks on neocons and neocon American policy regarding Israel. Both of these are not status-quo Republican but instead consistent with isolationists (libertarians and some paleo-conservatives) along with liberals and moderates who don't attach emotion, ethnicity, or religion to their support of Israel.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 2, 2009 5:20 PM

Re Michael Scheuer

Mr. Scheuer is nothing but an antisemitic Israel basher who is, in addition, a congenital prevaricator. Attached is a comment he subm itted to an article in the National Journal. Just a list of his lies and distortions.

1. His comment about Rahm Emanuel is a lie. Mr. Emanuel was rejected for service in the US Armed Forces because he is missing part of a finger which he lost in an accident as a teenager. The Israeli military is rather less exacting on on the physical condition of its recruits.

2. His comment that the Government of Israel suborns American Citizens to spy for Israel is based on a sample of 1, namely Jonathan Pollard some 25 years ago.

3. His comment that Jewish Americans provoke the ire of Muslim Americans by visiting Israel, even if true, is irrelevant. Would he have the US Government prevent the Mayor of New York from visiting Israel? The Muslim Congressman from Minnesota has visited Israel a number of times since he was elected. Is he part of the conspiracy to stir up Muslim American antipathy?

Michael F. Scheuer, Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

And how does our former anti-Soviet bulwark help us in the post-Cold War era? Reportedly it sells the technology we supply to Russia, China, and other of America's great "friends." It suborns U.S. citizens to commit espionage against their country on Israel's behalf. It corrupts U.S. domestic politics and elections via AIPAC and other organizations. It deliberately alienates and provokes the growing American Muslim community by inviting prominent Jewish-Americans -- including the mayor of New York -- to come to Israel and cheer on its invasion of Gaza and the Muslim casualties it has produced. And how does America reward this sterling ally-like behavior? The president-elect makes his chief-of- staff a U.S. citizen who abandoned the United States during the 1991 Iraq war to serve with the IDF. Seems to me that if America had a few more allies like Israel we would be well and truly sunk.

Parenthetically, I am delighted that I will not be the CIA officer who has to brief soon-to-be-president Obama every morning with an IDF veteran listening to America's most important secret data. After such an expeirience, how would you ever pass the polygraph?

Posted by: SLC | July 2, 2009 6:27 PM

Beck is floating the assertion that a major attack by al Qaeda will 'save America from Obama'.

Beck, and to some extent Fox, cater to the lunatic, paranoid, conspiracy theory believing fringe. People who widely believe that 9/11 was a 'false flag' attack and so that such an attack is possible. Many of these folks also are convinced that liberals in general and Obama in particular are evil spawn and that anything it takes to remove him is justified. Some cite religious reasons and motivations. Some of these people also assert that the news story where a B-52 took off with six nuclear armed missiles was distorted to covered up the fact that it only landed with five.

Given that the fanatical right and evangelical Christians have made efforts to get their people into the military and to advance them within the services is it too far fetched to think some of these people might be in charge of Americans WMDs. Possibly even nuclear weapons.

If a group of fanatical Christian servicemen had access and potential control over a nuclear weapon; if they really believed that Obama was a Muslim plant in a Manichean religious war; if they were to take to heart that the only way to remove him was to stage an attack with WMDs within the US and blame it on al Qaeda; do you think they might be tempted to push history along just a bit?

Highly improbable, yes. Impossible? Sadly, no.

Wild conspiracy theories are not just about creating a paranoid world view. They define what is imaginable, what is justifiable, and what is possible. As the Biblical tale of Sampson suggested; never underestimate the jawbone of an ass as a weapon of mass destruction.

Posted by: Art | July 2, 2009 7:39 PM

I think if anyone on the left - or in the center - had said the equivalent about Bush when he was president, many others on the left would have taught them the error of their ways. I don't think Beck's remark will be policed by anyone on the right. It seems to me that while the American left is hardly a paragon of self-policing, the right's self-policing has become nearly non-existent. (McCain made a few half-hearted efforts. Powell and some others made stronger efforts - but were widely excoriated for doing so.)

This relative lack of self-policing has enabled the right to use much more aggressive rhetoric, and thus present a stronger image to those who are unskeptical and impressed by a show of force (most Americans). But it has also strengthened the most radical and least realistic elements of the right. It seems to have been a big advantage in the short run, but in the long run it has contributed the American right's transformation into craziness.

Posted by: llewelly | July 2, 2009 11:51 PM

"McCain made a few half-hearted efforts. Powell and some others made stronger efforts - but were widely excoriated for doing so."
That's because they were trying to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 3, 2009 5:53 AM

Here's a good review of Scheuer's latest book, Marching Towards Hell, which I have not read.

I watched the entire clip of the Beck/Scheuer segment, Ed linked to only a portion. I think Scheuer's starting to go off the deep end given his rhetoric regarding Democrats. His book Imperial Hubris, or interviews concurrent with its publication, provided no indication he harbored zany perceptions like we see on display here.

While Scheuer's point that neither party is willing to take bold steps to protect the country is a valid one, especially within the context on why Arab Muslims terrorize the West and our failed reaction to that which we continue to repeat to some extent, I think his black-boot speculation on the Democrats' motivation regarding our Mexican policy (take away our gun rights) is as kooky as any conservative theory.

I had never watched Beck more than a handful of seconds on the few occasions a blogger like Ed has linked to a clip. So this was my first significant introduction to him. It's hard to imagine people both watch him and don't recognize this man is a loon, and an almost perfectly empty-headed one at that.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 3, 2009 8:23 AM

It's hard to imagine people both watch him and don't recognize this man is a loon, and an almost perfectly empty-headed one at that.

Then, my friend, you must suffer from a terrible lack of imagination!

It's not hard for me to imagine at all. Certainly no more difficult than imagining that people take loons like Pat Robertson or seriously.

Martian Buddy wrote:

Therefore, Bin Laden should lay low so the Democrats will stay in power and he can operate without interference while America self-destructs.

Even my powerful imagination can't conjure up an suitable excuse for the Bush Administration's lack of action in Afghanistan. At least not one that fits with this theory. If Bin Laden is there, or even in northern Pakistan, then he certainly had less to fear over the last 8 years than he does now.

Posted by: Leni | July 3, 2009 12:47 PM