I am slow to the party on this one but the level of insanity that came out of the following Glenn Beck show is nearly too much for me:



I’ll let Wonkette encapsulate my overall reaction:
Well, this is sort of what we all imagined, in our darkest & drunkest moments. Here’s a Fox News show featuring a weird jabbering middle-aged baby with hair plugs on the left side of the screen and some guy who claims to be a Bush Administration-era anti-Bin Laden agent on the right, and, well, they both share a certain dream for America, which involves the nation being horribly attacked by Osama bin Laden’s secret arsenal of nuclear weapons, from Mexico. THAT WILL LEARN US, RIGHT?…

We can either ignore this stuff, or we can embrace it, or we can look at it with compassion and then wonder, “What is up with these people? Why are they so crazy?”

Let’s go with the latter. Let’s first acknowledge that a certain portion of our nation has gone completely bonkers, and these overpaid clowns at Fox News (not you, Shep, we are with you!) are cruelly and deliberately exciting and exploiting the people who suffer the most when economic conditions are bad and the chasm of economic inequality is so deep and dark…

But, still, jesus fucking christ on a segway, we do not need FOX NEWS trying to excite the doomed with dreams of Osama bin Laden nuking America, on July 4th, to teach, uhm, Barack Obama a lesson.

Update: Here’s John Stewart’s riposte:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Osama bin Laden Needs to Attack America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Edit: title edited for accuracy.

  1. schu says:

    Once again it is situation ethics and any insanity to sell air time. Like the National Inquirer Fox will say anything and present any story to sell air time.

  2. Kevin says:

    I dont see how either of them are "yearning" for an attack, what they meant is that they think obama is not in the so called "post-911 mentality", and they think only another attack will wake him up or whatever…they want their dream of a policed state that checks dogs and cats for bombs…

    but still it was a stupid thing to say

    • Metavirus says:

      hmm, i'm not so sure. if they're "yearning" for "their dream of a policed state that checks dogs and cats for bombs" and the best way they see to achieve this is to have another terrorist attack, it's fair to think that they're yearning for another terrorist attack

      • Kevin says:

        so if I have a friend that wont wear a seatbelt, and I tell him, the only thing that will wake you up is a car crash…does that mean I want him to have a car crash?

        thats as far as im willing to defend him though…but I still dont want us to be reactionary in everything the opposition says…heck i dont like being reactionary period…

        • Metavirus says:

          let's take this from a broader perspective. we're talking about the ultimate "means justify the ends" people here. we're talking about a neoconservative and quasi-neoconservative ideology that believes that "torture works" (i.e. violating cherished human rights and international law norms is justified because someone somewhere once got a piece of good intelligence from it) and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives (and over 4,000 american military lives) was justified in an attempt to spread freedom to the middle east and secure Iraqi oil supplies. these are also the people (and the words of Beck's guest mirror this exactly) that believe that Obama is a weakling and that we need an omnipresent security state to keep us safe.

          so, do I believe that these ultimate moral relativists — the ultimate "means justify the ends" people — believe that the sacrifice of a few thousand american civilians is "worth it" to somehow bring down the obama administration by blaming him for the attack and thereby push for an ever-more-crushing Orwellian security state (in order to keep us safe)?

          yes, yes I do.

          • Kevin says:

            yes maybe thats what most neo cons believe, but we're talking about what beck's guest said(even there you made a mistake, it was his guest who said those words, not him, although he should of disagreed)

            im just saying lets not assume we know exactly what they are thinking, from these words he said, I dont see how they actually wish for an attack…

            but were never gonna agree so anyway… :)

            • Metavirus says:

              i hear what you're saying. maybe i'm just too jaded. i do know that there are some really irresponsible nutjobs out there who will callously shrug off the death of innocent lives if it advances their agenda.

  3. Trail-Mix says:

    Talk about twisting a comment and taking it completely out of it's context…this is nearly too much propaganda for me to handle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors