Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Points for Honesty. Crazy-Assed, Moon-Barking, Balls-Out Offensive Honesty. But Honesty, Nonetheless.
Other Bush apologists hinted at it.
The Philadelphia Daily News's Stu Bykofsky just went ahead and said it.
|8.9.07 @ 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.
|8.9.07 @ 11:21PM|#
More bed-wetting.
Oooh, the Republic's gonna fall because we're not unified, blah,
blah, blah.
|8.9.07 @ 11:28PM|#
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary
and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani
or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their
hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
There, fixed it.
|8.9.07 @ 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|8.9.07 @ 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.
|8.9.07 @ 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!
|8.9.07 @ 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?
|8.9.07 @ 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.
|8.9.07 @ 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.
|8.9.07 @ 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|8.9.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 12:04AM|#
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|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 12:39AM|#
In a sense, isn't he suggesting terror should be used to accomplish political ends...? Just a thought.
tros|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
Robert|8.10.07 @ 12:51AM|#
Let's have a great plague too, that'll really improve our public health response.
|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 2:16AM|#
I presume you are talking about the US actions in
Afghanistan
Seems 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 4:18AM|#
Holy Mackerel! Last time some idiot hinted at a need for an attack on U.S. soil they had their need satisfied.
|8.10.07 @ 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...
|8.10.07 @ 7:42AM|#
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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 8:21AM|#
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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 8:42AM|#
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|8.10.07 @ 8:58AM|#
Go away before we make love to your neck stump.
that's the sickest description of 'necro' I've heard!
jimmydageek|8.10.07 @ 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???
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
uncle sam|8.10.07 @ 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 hahahahahaha
Moral imbeciles in the White House.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Brotherben,
We're all trying in these trying times, but it's time to try to
triumph!
James Quentin Clark|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 11:26AM|#
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.)
|8.10.07 @ 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?
Dave W.|8.10.07 @ 11:31AM|#
We never did figure out who sent all the anthrax. I don't think even ever said exactly how many people died.
dhex|8.10.07 @ 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.)
|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 12:37PM|#
When I saw his Jewish name, my Jewish self shrank into my chair
a little. A stupid reaction, but perhaps forgivable.
Asshole.
|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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!
|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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.
...
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
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.
The Gulf Nation Political and Structural Realignment Action of 2003
was a bit more, umm, foggy in it's design and execution.
Stranger|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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|8.10.07 @ 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.
|8.10.07 @ 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...
|8.10.07 @ 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."?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245