This is excellent news for Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer!

In the comments section of your post on the Washington Independent Scheuer pretty much confirmed that he is hoping for another attack because he says the “elites” whatever in the hell that means, aren’t taking the threat seriously. He goes on to say that he thinks God might protect us but he wouldn’t count on it. And what it really boils down to is the end game. He wants more attention payed to terrorism and for it to be taken seriously. He doesn’t advocate writing letters to your Congressman or protesting or holding up signs. No he says he ONLY way we will take it seriously is if we get hit again. Thats not just a prediction that it might happen in the future or that its likely, its also what satisfies his endgame. So if he wants terrorism taken seriously and the only way it will be taken seriously in his estimation is another attack then you do the math.

One more thing, I noticed you threw Richard Clarke’s quote out there in your response post to what Scheuer’s comments at the WI. Here is the major difference. Richard Clarke was trying to spur the administration he worked for into action to prevent the disaster that he saw coming. Scheuer claims there is nothing we can do to get the “elites” to prevent another attack. Funny that he never said that when Bush was in office as far as I know even though he tries to make it seem like his criticism is bipartisan. Still saying we have a chance to prevent something is pretty much the exact opposite of saying we have NO chance of preventing it other than God intervening.

Scheuer’s interview with Mayer is worth listening to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_oaTIH8g

Why they hate us/
“that’s got nothing to do with why they hate us…it has everything to do with what we do”

Scheuer ” I hope Israel flourishes but I don’t think it’s worth an American life or an American dollar”

How long’s it been since Scheuer had influence? What, like ten years now? And I’m not counting his work for r0n p4v1 ’o8.

Seriously though, is Scheuer a drunk? Or just unmedicated Bipolar Type II?

I have to agree with other commenters that his explanation is senseless, because the reaction to the other two attacks didn’t result in what he seems to think is necessary.
He actually says our interventionism around the world is the REASON there would be another attack.
So what’s with the line about responding with sufficient “violence?” Obviously that’s going to be heard as meaning “go to war with” somebody by most people.
And I have to agree- if he doesn’t know that Beck is absolutely going to make that interpretation and quote him to support it, he has no business anhywhere near Beck’s show.

Besides, I disagree with his point that we are still unsafe – we haven’t done enough, but since Obama’s election, al Qaeda is getting less traction with his America-is-warring-with-Islam. This may not last, and it’s surely not enough, but it’s a step better than it was under the boy-prince.

Big, big difference.
For one thing, all of those cites are from periods before the deep economic nose-dive caused by 9/11/09.
Same thing, there was nothing close to a bubble at the time.
The only reference Krugman makes to a bubble is followed by qualifiers:

That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions.

He is talking about more housing starts leading a recovery. Not the same thing as advocating a bubble, or continuing to cheerlead for buying a house at any price in the midst of a bubble.
Scheuer says, in nearlly so many words, “we need to have a bin Laden attack with huge loss of life to save us from our politicians.”

NOT the SAME THING. Not the same thing at all.
There you go.
Part 2 of your question is thus rendered moot.