Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Other Bush apologists hinted at it.
The Philadelphia Daily News's Stu Bykofsky just went ahead and said it.
Points for Honesty. Crazy-Assed, Moon-Barking, Balls-Out Offensive Honesty. But Honesty, Nonetheless.
Comments to "Points for Honesty. Crazy-Assed, Moon-Barking, Balls-Out Offensive Honesty. But Honesty, Nonetheless.":
Karen | August 9, 2007, 11:15pm | #
What an asshole.Let me use an analogy here. Last month my husband developed acute pancreatitis from gallstones. He was in the hospital ten days. During that time, I really didn't worry much about anything else, especially the trivial stuff that takes up so much of my mind because I was consumed with worry Steve was going to die. (Not an uncommon result with pancreatitis in diabetics.) If I ever have that choice again, I'll take the trivia. Same with this. If the only way to avoid squabbling is the murder of another 3,000 people, I'll take squabbling, thank you.
Trooper Jones | August 9, 2007, 11:21pm | #
More bed-wetting.Oooh, the Republic's gonna fall because we're not unified, blah, blah, blah.
Aresen | August 9, 2007, 11:28pm | #
It isThere, fixed it.
Gregory Gay | August 9, 2007, 11:28pm | #
So, right after September 11, we were united in bold action - actions that, six years later, many of us are convinced were incredibly stupid.Is the best way to handle this realization to crave another fix of rage-provoking, mind-numbing, unity-restoring carnage?
thoreau | August 9, 2007, 11:29pm | #
Not only do I prefer squabbling to murder, I'd say that squabbling is actually the best possible response to mass murder. We tried unity last time, and we wound up marching lock-step behind a psychopath who led us into an insane war and shredded the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and every standard of decency.If squabbling after a terrorist attack keeps us from repeating that mistake, then bring on the squabbling.
Rudy Giuliani | August 9, 2007, 11:34pm | #
You know, I'm trying to keep quiet about this, but I can't any longer. I feel the need to speak to this, as the mayor of New York on 9/11, as someone who stood on the rubble, and went to all the funerals for the firemen and police officers who died that day. I can't contain the urgent desire that I have to voice my opinion when someone writes an article like this:HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! 9/11 24/7 BABY! YEAH!
matt | August 9, 2007, 11:41pm | #
The US has been afflicted with far less terrorism than average.We have responded disproportionally.
Mr. Philly.com wants another 9/11 to reinforce his sense of victimhood. Why doesn't he just focus on some imagined injustice in his personal life?
Taktix® | August 9, 2007, 11:43pm | #
Why doesn't he just focus on some imagined injustice in his personal life?He just needs a distraction from the real injustice: the fact that people buy into that crap.
Faux Joe Schmo | August 9, 2007, 11:50pm | #
El Unitary Executivo has taken every liberty he can get his fingers on to protect "us" from "them". And this guy is saying that a massive failure to protect us is supposed to shore up support for the same idiot who couldn't do it, even with my liberties tied behind his back?And, sadly, that is likely the exact effect it would have. Some BS poll would report that most Americans agree that, problem was, we didn't give up enough liberties.
Ugghhh.
Aresen | August 9, 2007, 11:50pm | #
Actually, the thought of another 9/11 frightens me - not in the sense of the appalling carnage - but in the sense of what the blowback might be in terms of civil liberties.The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, warrantless wiretapping, etc have done more long-term damage to the US than a dozen 9/11s could.
Your strength, your prosperity and your survival depend on the Bill of Rights. If only your polititians had the guts to say that.
highnumber | August 9, 2007, 11:57pm | #
What is his angle? Is he looking for a job at Fox News? Or is he simply a sicko? We can unite against him. That seems like a just cause.Anyway, if you ever need to show anybody what you mean by cynicism, there you go. So it does serve some purpose.
Greg | August 10, 2007, 12:01am | #
Would a terrorist attack help Ron Paul's campaign?Thinking about it, he would become a very more attractive candidate to liberals, with foreign policy and civil liberties thrust to the forefront.
Just a random thought.
Anonymo the Anonymous | August 10, 2007, 12:02am | #
Sounds like someone's spreading dangerous pro-terrorist propaganda. Maybe Badass Q. Columnist needs some extraordinary rendition to help flesh out his next waste of ink.Greg | August 10, 2007, 12:03am | #
"very more attractive" should read "very attractive" above.I watched those buildings fall. Not on TV. Not on 24/7 news replay. I watched it. Fuck you, Stu Bykofsky. Even if that was supposed to be some Swiftian irony, fuck you.
D. Greene | August 10, 2007, 12:28am | #
Greg: A terrorist attack would harm Ron Paul's campaign and anyone else trying to defend our civil liberties. It would surely cement Giuliani's position as frontrunner for the Republican nomination and probably guarantee him the presidency as well.Those sorts of events make debate almost totally impossible. The Rove/Neoconservative political machine has perfected their message to such an extent that it obviates the possibility for any sort of debate. For a dramatized example, Tom Cruise's line from the upcoming Lions for Lambs movie is instructive: "How and why isn't an issue now...We have to move forward...Do you want to win the War on Terror? Yes or no. This is the quintessential yes or no question of our time. YES OR NO."
It's that kind of talk that people like O'Reilly spew every night on the teevee to 2 million plus viewers.
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | August 10, 2007, 12:36am | #
"It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever."
====
So...he believes it will restore our righteous rage but, sadly, it won't last forever. Which, I must assume, means he would then call for a third 9/11, and then a fourth, ad nauseum.
That...that's just sick.
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | August 10, 2007, 12:39am | #
In a sense, isn't he suggesting terror should be used to accomplish political ends...? Just a thought.tros | August 10, 2007, 12:42am | #
I think this is a perfectly rational position for Bush supporters to take. It certainly explains why they do nothing to stop terrorism. They sat there and let it happen once, and look where it got them. They can just wait for the next one, declare martial law, and sell Florida to Saudi Arabia.I think now would be a good time to suggest that we have an intelligence agency that doesn't create and fund violent drug gangs to control other countries.
joshua corning | August 10, 2007, 12:43am | #
I am a Bush apologist and we do not need another 9/11.And I kind of like how our country has fractured.
sixstring | August 10, 2007, 12:47am | #
Johnny C. --That's exactly what he is saying. What an asshat.
Let's have a great plague too, that'll really improve our public health response.
perry | August 10, 2007, 12:57am | #
Here is yet another one of those 'black or white' mentality folks who can't see that had we gone to balls to the wall in afghanistan against bin laden instead of venturing into iraq on a whim and a promise of WMD's, that the american public would likely still have resolve to be 'at war'.The administration can't on one hand use terrorism and iraq as a cure-all explanation for every shady, semi shady or really shady thing that goes on and then on the other hand wonder why people are getting sick of us being there at all.
Anonymo the Anonymous | August 10, 2007, 1:00am | #
A bunch of kids getting molested would probably call attention to the dangers posed by child molesters. Anti-Molesters for Molestation! Whose name can I put on the 501c3 papers? Cause I ain't using mine.Maybe I should cross-post this on the naked priest thread to make sure all relevant parties are notified.
crimethink | August 10, 2007, 1:01am | #
Well, on the first 9/11, most people thought Bush was simply a relatively harmless fool who might've gotten lucky with the vote mishaps in FL in 2000. So, when he came across as a forceful leader with a vision for how the world could become a better place because of our reaction to 9/11, people bought in and united behind him for a time.I'd be really, really surprised if even another 9/11 attack could restore that unity. Bush has given far too many people reason to hate him at this point. As for Giuliani, well, I could see him losing a bit of prestige as someone else will have a shot at being the Hero of XX/XX (insert date here) when his or her city/county/state is attacked.
javier | August 10, 2007, 1:06am | #
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog."That shit pisses me off. I'm a gun toting "redneck" (i don't live in an urban area) that will gladly fight to the death if my liberties are challeged but Iraq has nothing to do with that.
CS | August 10, 2007, 1:06am | #
I think America after 9/11 was kind of like someone in the grip of road rage who gets sideswiped in traffic, goes into a righteous rage, and the next thing they know they're standing over someone's corpse with a tire iron in their hand, wondering how they hell they're going to get out of this situation.Similarly, three years after 9/11 the American public calmed down a bit, looked around - and found its troops acting as policemen in Baghdad in the midst of all kinds of craziness with no easy way out.
If, God forbid, another large-scale terrorist attack occurs on American soil I'm afraid that when America eventually comes to its senses its going to find its troops patrolling the bombed-out streets of Tehran.
Jamie Kelly | August 10, 2007, 1:23am | #
I think he's right.I'd love to see my family perish if it could just solidify the national resolve.
I'm throwing my mom in first. Sorry, ma, but put on some Bactine and Icy Hot before you're set on fire. That will lessen the pain when you're torching up like a sack of dogshit.
Good job, Philly Enquirer. I hope that assfucker's paycheck bounces.
wayne | August 10, 2007, 1:25am | #
"So, right after September 11, we were united in bold action - actions that, six years later, many of us are convinced were incredibly stupid."I presume you are talking about the US actions in Afghanistan, and by "many of us" you mean... a handful. The actions against the Taliban, and Al Qaida were exactly the right thing to do, and not at all stupid. Many of us believe that.
Dave B. | August 10, 2007, 1:28am | #
Apparently, the road to tyranny is paved in the blood of innocents.Jonathan Hohensee | August 10, 2007, 2:01am | #
I'd be really, really surprised if even another 9/11 attack could restore that unity. Bush has given far too many people reason to hate him at this point. As for Giuliani, well, I could see him losing a bit of prestige as someone else will have a shot at being the Hero of XX/XX (insert date here) when his or her city/county/state is attacked.Katrina
Anonymo the Anonymous | August 10, 2007, 2:16am | #
I presume you are talking about the US actions in AfghanistanSeems more likely he's talking about PATRIOT, the surveillance state, unitary executive, etc. I can't speak for him but I don't think you're justified in assuming he means the relatively popular (at least in theory, if not execution) Afghan campaign.
Unity and war...unity for more war, that's all these people care about.
wayne | August 10, 2007, 3:30am | #
Anonymo,Maybe you are right, but the only thing the US did "right after September 11" was to strike the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan.
WalterBoswell | August 10, 2007, 4:18am | #
Holy Mackerel! Last time some idiot hinted at a need for an attack on U.S. soil they had their need satisfied.Max | August 10, 2007, 7:24am | #
Apparently, the road to tyranny is paved in the blood of innocents.Or, the tree of authoritarianism must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of...
The need for perpetual war against a changing, faceless enemy is a necessary precursor for all totalitarian regimes. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" addresses the same point--when all of our incentives are temporarily aligned, central planning "works." Once they fall back out of alignment, central planning cannot cope with the variability, and so conflicting incentives arise that cause some to actually desire more war.
WalterBoswell | August 10, 2007, 7:49am | #
JohnD : Most of you morons make me sick.You can all go to hell.
That's a tad vague there JohnD, can you be more specific? This isn't Iraq, there are rules you know.
I'm sure Bykofsky is willing to sacrifice himself in the "Next 9/11", knowing that his death will have played a part in rallying America.
highnumber | August 10, 2007, 8:30am | #
I'm getting some great fodder lately.SugarFree | August 10, 2007, 8:34am | #
JohnD,Let's see... we think it's nuts to wish for another 9/11 to unite the country under Bush and we're the morons in the discussion?
Go away before we make love to your neck stump.
Oh, and regarding the actual article, is this supposed to be satire?
I'm hoping the next attack will be biological. Restoring resolve hell, I want to see social security saved on the backs of old northeastern liberals.
gaijin | August 10, 2007, 8:58am | #
Go away before we make love to your neck stump.that's the sickest description of 'necro' I've heard!
jimmydageek | August 10, 2007, 9:04am | #
So, the media gets Imus fired for calling some nappy headed hos "nappy headed hos"...and this guy survives calling for the death of more US citizens? WTF???joe | August 10, 2007, 9:40am | #
We don't need another 9/11 to bring the country together.We just certain political leaders to stop using the issue of terrorism as a partisan wedge issue.
The diappearance of the unity in this country in the weeks after 9/11 didn't happen naturally, or on its own. It was deliberately destroyed by professional politicians and political consultants who determined that ripping the country in half politically would give their party a slightly bigger half.
tarran | August 10, 2007, 9:42am | #
jimmy,He only wants to see Americans killed, not insulted. See the difference?
Apparently sticks and stones are far less hurtful than cruel words.
joe | August 10, 2007, 9:50am | #
thoreau,It would be a mistake to lump together all political dispute under the heading "squabbling."
I recall the debate over whether DHS employees (like, say, FEMA managers) should be at-will employees of the President was decided by saying that people who didn't want them to be poltical hacks "cared more about unions than about the security of the American people."
I can recall the debate over whether the USA PATRIOT Act went too far being ended by a declaration that "those who conjure phantoms of lost liberty are GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES." The Constitutional definition of treason, a few weeks after the planes hit the towers.
Principled political debate over the merits of issues, even if heated, is not remotely the same thing as using accusations that your political opponents are in leage with mass murdering terrorists in order to push through your political agenda.
jimmydageek | August 10, 2007, 10:13am | #
Yea, I guess so, tarran.uncle sam | August 10, 2007, 10:23am | #
Man, it would have been nice if the USSR had nuked one of our cities. We'd have paved over Moscow. ha ha ha ha hahahahahahaMoral imbeciles in the White House.
josephdietrich | August 10, 2007, 10:24am | #
It would be nice if this article could win something like a Literary Darwin Award. But apparently it is not possible to write something so profoundly retarded that it kills you.Which is too bad.
Lamar | August 10, 2007, 10:29am | #
"We just [need] certain political leaders to stop using the issue of terrorism as a partisan wedge issue."Not to mention using the supposed threat of terrorism as a pretext to redraw the map of the middle east.
brotherben | August 10, 2007, 10:43am | #
3000 and some odd dead.vs.
great national unity(flag makers doing fine thanks)
strong economy (military base next door)
higher church attendance (stronger economy for God)
increased awareness of border security issues(maybe even some action)
lotsa new jobs making military stuff
etc.
simple cost/benefit . the man has a point
and in these apathetic times we can all use a little pick me up to feed our sense of victimhood.
If brother Falwell says it's God's will, then we must accept our punishment secure in the knowledge that these trying times are not in vain.
josephdietrich | August 10, 2007, 10:49am | #
I thank brotherben for testing out my hypothesis that it is not possible to write something so profoundly retarded that it kills you.Assuming he survived posting his comment, that is.
Randolph Carter | August 10, 2007, 11:06am | #
Brotherben,We're all trying in these trying times, but it's time to try to triumph!
James Quentin Clark | August 10, 2007, 11:13am | #
Absurdly offensive or offensively absurd? Take your pick. No, we don't need another 9/11. It's ironic how fervant anti-terrorist beliefs lead to a terrorist mindset. "We need thousands of innocent people killed so that..." aside from the blank, it's equivalent to the jihadists.The problems America faces are not so trivial that a disaster or two will snap people into the right kind of thinking. Would that it were so simple. The problems are much more fundamental than that. It isn't just our foreign policy, or our politics or the "culture wars" and reality television. All of those are symptoms.
These people are very sick puppies, and it shows just how desperate Republicans have become. Before the 2004 election, I predicted that a Bush re-election would be devastating for the Republican party. Some laughed at me then, but who's laughing now? (Well, actually I'm laughing at the folly of humankind.)
Karen | August 10, 2007, 11:29am | #
joe, I think Dr. T used "squabbling" in his comment because I used in the first one on this thread. I meant "squabbling" in the "worry about Gary Condit" sense, which I want back really, really badly.Have I mentioned that this columnist is an asshole?
We never did figure out who sent all the anthrax. I don't think even ever said exactly how many people died.
dhex | August 10, 2007, 11:34am | #
may i be the first to say "fuck bringing the country together!"togetherness is way fucking overrated. just ask the iraqis (oh bad analogy sorry).
"It would be a mistake to lump together all political dispute under the heading "squabbling.""
well you would say that; you're part of the squabblers. (no offense and i love you joe and all that, but you are team blue and that's your thing. we see it different here in flavor country. nothing much you can do about that.)
Neu Mejican | August 10, 2007, 12:01pm | #
The underlying premise here is the same one that Bin Ladin inc uses regularly. 9/11 (and all the other attacks on the US) are designed to get a reaction out of the US...designed to goad the US into taking military action in the Middle East, so that AQ can unify opposition to the US in the region based on the violence.9/11 worked well for them...primarily because it facilitated the Iraq invasion and turned the US into an occupying force. An ongoing 9/11 among their base. Great recruiting tool.
So maybe this asshat thinks we need AQ to occupy Philadelphia...that would provide us with an ongoing tragedy to unify around.
twit.
Pendulum | August 10, 2007, 12:37pm | #
When I saw his Jewish name, my Jewish self shrank into my chair a little. A stupid reaction, but perhaps forgivable.Asshole.
TrickyVic | August 10, 2007, 12:43pm | #
"""I'd be really, really surprised if even another 9/11 attack could restore that unity. """I think another attack would lead to less unity. People would be looking to place blame and they will start fighting over who was right, and who was wrong.
This guy is a class A moron.
uncle sam | August 10, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Who knows? If it works, then maybe we could get some illegal immigrants to stage an attack...then we could get everyone to unite behind the idea of rounding them all up and putting them to work in the fields.The tribe, when threatened, gathers around behind it's strongest alpha male...he'll know what to do.
There's the difference between man and lesser animals. The lower creatures don't have politicians to take advantage of the threat-reaction instinct for the purpose of crowd control.
joe | August 10, 2007, 1:54pm | #
I'm pretty sure brotherben was being sarcastic. You don't generally see "feed our sense of victimhood" used in a positive sense.dhex, you're a squabbler, too. You're just on a smaller team.
hale | August 10, 2007, 1:58pm | #
This is a great idea, obviously, but I see no reason why we ought to wait for Al Qaeda to act, since they're apparently kind of incompetent.Let's just set fire to the Reichst-- I mean, to Congress-- and BLAME it on them. National unity, here we come!
Ken Shultz | August 10, 2007, 2:13pm | #
"To save America, we need another 9/11"He's half right...
There's no way the Bush Administration would have been able to get away with what it's done if it hadn't been for 9/11 and the cowardice it inspired.
...in our politicians and in ourselves.
I think he's absolutely right about that.
thoreau | August 10, 2007, 2:20pm | #
maybe we could get some illegal immigrants to stage an attack...then we could get everyone to unite behind the idea of rounding them all up and putting them to work in the fields.What about construction sites? And restaurants? We should be comprehensive about this.
crimethink | August 10, 2007, 2:49pm | #
Maybe we just need an Islamofascist version of the Two Minutes Hate to unite the country. A little less destructive than 9/11 redivivi.Kwix | August 10, 2007, 3:20pm | #
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.We won't mention that Gulf War 1990 was an achievable military goal. Take all the military you've got and force the Iraqi troops back over the Kuwait/Iraq border and decimate (more like obliterate) their military force to prevent another invasion. Mission accomplished.
...
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
The Gulf Nation Political and Structural Realignment Action of 2003 was a bit more, umm, foggy in it's design and execution.
Stranger | August 10, 2007, 3:55pm | #
We won't mention that Gulf War 1990 was an achievable military goal.Not to mention that Bush the (slightly) Smarter studiously avoided a situation as foolish as actually trying to occupy Iraq.
Even Cheney said it shouldn't be done, IIRC.
Richard | August 10, 2007, 4:58pm | #
Mark Steyn responds in The Corner:For a start, the author overstates the immediate unity post-9/11. Even then, there was a big difference between the "righteous rage" crowd and those who wanted to wallow in bathetic weepy let's-hold-hands-and-drone-"Imagine" candlelight vigils and retreat into antiquated tropes about "root causes" like global poverty (notwithstanding the middle-class backgrounds of Mohammed Atta and co). The second time round, there won't even be a momentary veneer of unity. The angry left will be demanding by lunchtime "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" and citing eminent scientists such as Professor Rosie O'Donnell to demonstrate that it couldn't possibly have been anything but an inside job. The less angry left will demand not a punitive military response but a 12-month blue-ribbon commission co-chaired by Lee Hamilton to call witnesses and investigate where the Administration went wrong. Less motivated types will be convinced - like British public opinion after the Glasgow attack and the sailor kidnappings - that it's blowback for Iraq. And a big chunk of the rest may even plump for the Spanish option post-Madrid: Oh, dear, we seem to have caught your eye. What would it take for that not to happen again?
Franklin Harris | August 10, 2007, 4:59pm | #
In other words, Bykofsky wants those wacky "Islamofascists" to do something that "justifies" our dropping bombs on a lot of Muslims because he wants to drop bombs on Muslims, anyway.rob | August 10, 2007, 5:33pm | #
"Apparently, the road to tyranny is paved in the blood of innocents."Worse news: Even the road to liberty is paved in the blood of innocents. Human history is one long slog of people getting killed for ideology and power - even democracy had its Reign Of Terror.
The only good news in most of human history is the eye-blink's worth of establishment and steady progress that democratic republics have made toward greater liberty for an ever-widening definition of "the people" - but even the brightest of those states has had its moments of slavery, attempted aboriginal genocide, racial internment camps, etc.
Yeah, I'm a real ray of sunshine today...
brotherben | August 10, 2007, 10:53pm | #
yes I was being sarcastic. no I didn't die.and I forgot to mention the economic boon due to the huge increase in the sale of chinese made american flags.
and I am convinced that some politician somewhere believes in his/her heart that another attack would benefit their party.
A lot of folks here in south Alabama are just weary of the whole Charlie Foxtrot that is "the war on terror". no plan, no goal, seemingly no positive results.
Is it apathy to throw up your hands and say "fuck it, I give up on politics in america."?