Osama bin Laden as America's savior

It's a new conservative rite, DD and OE . . . it's part and parcel of Fox telling us what Sowell meant to say which was not what he did say. So for McWhitey to tell us what Scheuer ought to have said rather than what he did say is nothing more than the new editorial function that conservatives at this site have staked out as their mission in enlightening the poor, benighted libruls who are too dim to understand that what someone says is not necessarily what they really are saying . . .

Wow. I am sure glad you guys are here to pick up the slack and pat each other on the back. The world is a much better place for it.

I hope, someday, that I can be as perfect as you guys are that I know exactly what someone is saying because I read a transcript. I mean everyone knows that what they read is the truth and no amount of context will ever change what was actually written down.

I applaud your attention to detail and the firmness of your belief. It's like talking to people on the creationist threads that know they are right because they, too, read what was written and no amount of context will change their minds either. I hope you enjoy being in the same class of people and you should be proud of your achievements.

It's irony wasted on you McG.

T
K
O

What crap. There is plenty of context and he's speaking in plain terms.

What: Terrorism attack
Who: Osama
When: In the future
Where: In the USA
Why: To prove that the Obama Administration is wrong about national security.

What context is left? What is ambiguous about any of these terms?

What this guy says requires no translation. We don't need to committee about it and philosophize about potential meanings. The message is surface level.

If you can't clearly read verbatim what he wrote and understand, it is your problem.

You even went as far as to edit what he said to support what you think he said, or rather what you wish he had said.

You pick terrible battles. You'd have been better off if you had some better judgement about which messages you feel need to be defended. In this case, you choose a violent and logically indefensible idea.

T
Keep digging.
O

GLENN BECK: Okay. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

MICHAEL SCHEUER: No, Sir, they will not. 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 gonna 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 observed 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.

MICHAEL SCHEUER: No, Sir, they will not. The only chance we have as a country right now to find out, is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States, because it's gonna 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 observed 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.

I didn't edit what he said, I simply inserted my words....

You see what you want to see, I see what I want to see.

I can only help you so much.

You only see his answer and how you despise him for it. That's typical of you and your ilk. You don't care about the question, the conversation, the topic or anything else. You see an answer you don't like and jump all over like rabid pit bulls refusing to even consider a different point of view. You do it all the time, so this instance is hardly unique.

It's really stupid for you to only see what the written word is saying and I can imagine you bashing the devout about their reliance on the written word in other threads.

Just as a reminder, here it is again.

Read his reply this way in answer to becks question:

Quote:

MICHAEL SCHEUER: No, Sir, they will not. The only chance we have as a country right now to find out, is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States, because it's gonna 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 observed 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.

It makes far more sense, as an answer to the question posed, to add that little bit.

I didn't edit what he said, I simply inserted my words so that people like you can understand what it was he was saying and maybe it might dislodge the stick in your ass for just long enough to let an idea through.

So far though you have proven incapable of that, so I doubt this will do anything to ease your mind. Instead you will keep ranting and raving like a crazed baboon about "OMG! You can see what he said! It's right here!!! Just read it! Geez, can't you Repubs understand even the simply written words?!?!"

...the idea that Obama isn't tough enough on national security (an idea without factual support, btw) ...

With Iran and North Korea testing missiles, why is Obama cutting missile defense?

H2O MAN wrote:

With Iran and North Korea testing missiles, why is Obama cutting missile defense?

Can either Iran or North Korea reach the US with their missiles?

We're talking about missiles, not nuclear weapons.