Life must have gotten pretty sad in rightwingland if we if we now have columnists like Stu Bykofsky praying in the Philadelphia Daily News for another 9/11, the ultimate deus ex machina, to rescue conservatism in time for 2008. You would expect sensible folks on The Right to distance themselves from the batshit crazy idea that America needs \more smoking ground zeroes (for example), but that has happened less than you would think. Drudge, Mike Gallagher and FOX’s John Gibson all seem to think that Byofsky has a point.
Somebody might want to ask whether anybody in government feels roughly the same as Bykofsky does. To get some sense of the playing field in 2008, consider that the GOP has put forward such a slate of numbskulls and miscreants that prominent conservatives now debate which Democratic candidate they prefer (hint: not John Edwards). It’s perfectly natural for anyone staring into the abyss to daydream about magical rescue scenarios. And let’s be honest, the terror attacks on 9/11 worked out pretty well for the Republican party. What are the odds that people who apply political calculus to every single other decision (including, not least, terrorism policy) blind themselves about that particular point?
***
Or you could also ask whether Bykofsky even has his politics right. Gaming the scenario out a bit, he clearly thinks that another mass casualty attack would rally the population back around the happy unity time that some of us remember as Republican hegemony. Maybe, but I think Atrios has it closer to the mark:
So if a massive terrorist attack happened, it wouldn’t be a vindication of what they’ve been doing, it would be proof that they failed to do what George Bush claims is his most important job.
Indeed, people would probably come to the obvious conclusion that president Bush promised to make us safer and failed. The problem is that it might not matter. Remember that decisiveness and steely determination that Republicans thought could never, ever have a negative side? Surprise. No new opprobrium will ever convince Bush to step down or even change course. Instead, as always, he will deal with the crisis by proposing a battery of new draconian powers for himself. Imagining a pariah president demanding ludicrous new enabling laws would be pretty funny except, judging by their maestro performance on last week’s FISA bill, ask yourself how confident you are that Democrats won’t pass them.
***Update***
John just IM’d me: what would happen if Ward Churchill had said terrorist attacks on the US would be a good thing?
I think that the actual Ward Churchill answers John’s question succinctly. Blogosphere right would throw a yearlong tantrum over the issue and would go on calling Democrats “the party of Stu Bykofsky” into perpetuity, conveniently ignoring the fact that virtually nobody defended or cared about what Stu Bykofsky had to say.
Wait, that isn’t true. Stu Bykofsky seems to have something like plurality support on the right. Even the totally mainstream, totally balanced newscasters at FOX like his point enough to promote it themselves. I guess that you can’t really compare the two scenarios after all.
Jim Treacher
Not Bykofsky!
Face
I can guarentee you the conservatives will be rallying behind this. Face it–it’s their only chance at getting re-elected, and they know it.
Punchy
Isn’t that Jon Belushi’s character in Animal House?
myiq2xu
Looks like Philly has a mascot worse than Steely McBeam.
Andrew
You moonbats love Islamoterrorishadis soooooo much that you don’t even want them to kill themselves in suicide attacks against Americans. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No, it was just the start of Ronald Reagan’s great victory over Satan. Now you leftards hate America so much that you want to create a hybrid manimal between Stalin and a deaf goat with your stem cells. And so Michael Moore (D-Fat) can make another movie with Ben Affleck starring as Osama bin Laden just to demoralize the 9/11 rescue worker, Rudy Giuliani.
Ted
What’s hilarious about this (or not really hilarious, and I mean this as a compliment) is that John would still be siding with conservatives given a lot of his policy positions, were it not for their recent behavior and general batshittery. It truly is amazing that the conservative ideology has journeyed from limited gov’t and individual rights to what it stands for now.
What a way to alienate sane people.
raff
Byofsky thinks fellow Americans dying in a terrorist attack is a worthwhile sacrifice to rally the nation to Bush’s cause & re-instate a national zeitgeist of unquestioning fear.
Ann Coulter opined that the 9/11 terrorists should have targeted the NY Times bldg. Apparently any non-NYTimesers that might have died in that hypothetical attack would be “acceptable losses” as long it it took out a few “liberally-biased” journos. Lately Coulter has suggested that she thinks it’s just fine & dandy if John Edwards (a US presidential candidate & “fag”) were to be taken out in a terrorist attack. Again, no word about any innocent non-Edwards Americans that might perish in that attack — as long as Edwards dies, it’s all good!
Bill O’Reilly openly stated that should Los Angeles suffer a terrorist attack, they’d be “on their own” in terms of aid & comfort from the rest of the country, tacitly endorsing the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths of his fellow Americans.
What the hell kind of political alignment calls for the deaths of roughly half of their fellow citizens? Wtf is wrong with these people?
myiq2xu
That is, without a doubt, the most intelligent statement I’ve ever seen from a wingnut.
pharniel
they want power and see ‘us vs. them’ as the way to get it from the millions of disenfranchised and alienated americans
let’s face it, which is easier to swallow and better on your ego:
a) your employer is systematically indebting you now that they are the only game in town, and it was your own fault for chasing ‘the lowest prices’ that casue you to be poor and have no future for you or your children because your own greed, sloth and carelessness lead you into a non-satisfying life of wage slavery and toil.
or
b) TEH LIBRUALS and OSAMA are responsible for us havn’ta take away thier freedoms so that i can enjoy what ihave. and if i don’t have enough it’s someone elses’ fault, not only is it thier fault, it was thier plan to oppress me all allong, so i shouldn’t blame myself, i should blame the mystic ‘them’ and elect people that think like i do, because they’re the ones that let me know about this conspiracy. ’cause we all know i coulda been something, if only someone else hadn’t kept me down.
it’s the oldest PR trick in the book.
absolution for one’s faults and re-enforcement that your faults didn’t really hrut you, someone else did.
in short, they are power hungry and immoral bastards what need to be dealt with the way we’ve always delt with traitors attempting to subvert the government.
Mike
The people who insist that the U.S. government knew about 9/11 ahead of time and let it happen (or planned it in the first place) are nutjobs. They are, really. Total demented wackos.
But if (God forbid) something does happen, close to the election, and the right-wing noise machine blankets the airwaves with pronouncements that this proves we need a Strong Leader Who Will Double Guantanamo, and a GOP nominee who had been trailing badly is now right back in the race, well, how demented would you be?
RSA
Starting a war wasn’t a bad move for the Republicans either, according to Bush’s approval rating, at least. Launching attacks on Iran may sound insane, but it’s something that some serious people worry about.
I’ve long thought that another attack would result in a public shift in the opposite direction from Republicans. When you put all your eggs in the terrorism basket. . . (well, nothing clever occurs to me to finish this aphorism). They can’t get away with blaming Democratic treason, though they’ll try; they have six years of fiddling to explain.
Bob Barbaque
I cant believe you guys and gals take the right-wing asshat nutters seriously when as everyone knows they would dearly love for the apocolypse to occur at this instance if only to prove the muslims wrong and to shore up their own feelings of inadequacy by proving themselves right.
Let these douche-ola’s proclaim what they believe the righteous would love to think about the liberals,
in the military vernacular,qed: they got no shoulders.
This country is fucked up beyond all repair and who is too blame?,well it is’nt them My fine young scientists.
Even after their control of the courts and the legislative
and executive,decider branches of government for x=#years now.
If i remember correctly the arguments in favor of the coalition of the willing for the crusades went something like: well the muslims have ritualistic meals with christian newborns as the main course,something like that.
Imagine if you will,christian babies.
So i guess the next thing, since they havent had an original thought since the twelfth century should go something like this:
Well the liberals have ritualistic meals with conservative newborns as the main course.
Imagine that,Conservative babies?
Why havent we thought of this before especially when beef and pork are nigh unaffordable?
Otto Man
The Bykofsky Brigades are growing, as evidenced by this segment on the Fox Noise morning show. (I believe it’s called Retarded Romper Room, but that might not be the show’s actual name. Check your local listings.)
Doug H.
I think they’ll be too busy voting on articles of impeachment to worry. For Bush to ask for all these sweeping powers, and then we get hit again? Fool me once, shame on me… uh… never get fooled again.
jrg
One minute it’s “The Democrats want us to fail in Iraq, because some of them warned us against going to war without an exit strategy”. The next minute it’s “The Democrats want more natural disasters to prove they are right about global warming”.
I’ve don’t recall reading any prominent liberal columnist making statements remotely resemble this strawman.
Today a conservative columnist explicitly writes: “I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America.” And proceeds into a delusional rant waxing nostalgic about the fateful day when a large portion of a flagship American city was destroyed, and thousands of mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers died.
Beyond being transparent and morally reprehensible, Stu Bykofsky is a total moron. Keep it up, Bykofsky. Maybe if you keep saying crap like this, people will start asking more questions like “Who had the most to benefit from the Anthrax attacks, why were all the targets Democrats or journalists, and where the hell is Bin Laden”?
CaseyL
Another terrorist attack won’t bring us together again, because we remember being played for fools the last time.
Unless it “brings us together” to march by the millions to DC, drag Bush and Cheney out of the White House, and send them to Baghdad via trebuchet.
myiq2xu
The GOP only wants to bring us together so they can fuck us all at once.
ConservativelyLiberal
Shorter Stu: ‘We need the enemy to hate and kill us so we will love each other more.’
If we get hit with a turrist attack now, the Repugs will just blame the Democratic ‘controlled’ congress that they are throwing every roadblock they can come up with at. RayGun, the Teflon President, is nothing compared to King ‘Jesus is coming!’ George. If RayGun was Teflon, Bush must be Delrin. Dense, hard, slippery and only suceptible to heat, which he is well shielded from.
I was wondering how long it would take the right to start daydreaming about a new attack that they could exploit for political gain, just like 9-11. Only the right would dream of profiting off of the dead (in every way imaginable), as long as it is none of their own that die.
The dregs of the Repug party are a bunch of sick…
You fill in the blank.
Perry Como
Either that or blow us all at once for $20.
caustics
I haven’t really been following this story, but all I remember about Stu Bykofsky from working in Philly years ago is that he was some kind of third-tier gossip columnist. A party crashing, weaselly, dirt-disher of inane and often vile innuendo.
The fact that he blurted out every Neocon’s most heartfelt dream is more akin to the Infinite Monkeys principle.
jcricket
Seriously? Are we surprised that the “Revelations” Party is anxiously cheering on apocalyptic events? The right-wing evangelical takeover of the Republican party has gone deep enough that I expect to regularly see Republicans cheering for the death and destruction of anything they feel will hasten their eventual glorious judgment day. *barf*
I do find it ironic that the party of “left behind” regularly pokes light at muslims who believe a glorious future awaits them in heaven if they martyr themselves for their religion.
laneman
But, really, you’re against america and the troops if you don’t support more dead civilians to rally the pleebs to the cause of protecting america.
whatsleft
I see George Clooney in that role – isn’t he taller and more liberal than Ben?
demkat620
Two things here:
1: The country is pretty united around the fact that we are sick of Bush, Cheney, and the Iraq war.
2: The everything changed on 9/11 meme isn’t paying off the way it used to.
nabalzbbfr
A mass terror attack would be the ultimate vindication of President Bush’s guiding philosophy: that fighting terrorism is job #1 for America. The American people have allowed themselves to be distracted from this all-important mission. They were led astray last November by venal Democrat politicians who falsely promised them an easy way out of the hard choices that this nation must face. Consequently President Bush’s antiterrorist program has been treachorously sabotaged from within and a mass casualty terrorist strike would be just desserts in retribution. But on the positive side it would finally unmask the liberal fifth column which has been undermining our nation. The gloves would really come off and President Bush and Vice President Cheney would obtain the freedom of action to deal not only with external threats but also with the moral filth and internal treachery which is an even more mortal threat to our national existence.
Elvis Elvisberg
What’s interesting about the article is that he hopes for an attack so that we get unity, because “sideshow squabbles” over whether the war is going well and whether it was good or bad for American security are… well, bad, somehow.
This is a country born in raucous, fractious debate. The idea, apparently common among conservatives, is that things would be awesomer if we only blew more shit up and increased uncheckable executive power with no debate over whether or not those actions are effective or moral.
It’s just plain un-American.
TenguPhule
Sadly, this is only going to be the start.
And it probably won’t end without blood being shed.
Because to the New Right, lives matter less then holding power. And they will do anything they can get away with to do so.
Tim F.
nabalzbbfr – spoof or disturbingly honest exemplar of modern conservatism?
I will reluctantly vote (B), but boy is it close.
Doug H.
nabalzbbfr Says:
You know, it does read better!
The Other Steve
I find the comments in the carbetbagger link about GOP warming up to Clinton and Obama interesting.
Is it really that the Democratic field is better this time around? I don’t know that it’s that much different then last time or even 2000. Bradley and Gore looked a hell of a lot better even at the time compared to Bush and McCain.
It seems to me it’s an excuse. It was used in 2004 “I can’t vote for Kerry, cause he’s worse”.
But now they’ve come to realize something. What they believed in was all bullshit. Yet, rather than acknowledge that when Rudy McRomney are running around trumpeting the same lame talking points. They blame the failure on the candidates, not their failed ideology.
Just interesting.
Hell, when you’ve lost Ben Stein on economic issues, you’ve lost it all.
eric
“9/11, the ultimate deus ex machina”; it seemed that the “Rapture” that evangelicals were hoping for was their special deus ex machina. Well, I guess if they can’t get one maybe they’ll get the other.
Psycheout
Americans always rally around the leader. They are scared little children who are more than willing to give up everything, especially their so-called rights, to be safe. Hopefully I will not be proven right by a third Pearl Harbor event, but I think everyone knows this to be true.
Besides, everyone knows the Democrat party is unreliable when it comes to national defense. Another terrorist attack would benefit the Republicans, not the DemoRATs.
Psycheout
I think nabalzbbfr got it just about right. Well done, nabalzbbfr.
ConservativelyLiberal
Lets see:
World War I, America led by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. We won the war.
World War II, America led by Franklin Roosevelt and later Harry Truman, both Democrats. We won the war.
Korean War, America led by by Harry Truman at the inception of the war, who was a Democrat. It was ended in a draw by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President.
Vietnam War, America was led by Dwight Eisenhower at the inception of the war, who was a Republican President. He handed off the war to John Kennedy, who was assasinated. The war was picked up by Lyndon Johnson, who handed the war off to Richard Nixon, a Republican President, who tried his darndest and still was not able to pull a win out.
RayGun had Grenada, and Bush I chased Saddam out of Kuwait. So we can skip those as they were not knock down, drag out wars… ;)
The way I see it, Republicans suffer from war envy. Democrats win major wars, and Republicans can’t even win a little one. I think that is why Repubs repeat the meme about Dems being weak on protecting the country so loudly. The right only says this to distract from the facts that are out there for all to see.
Democrats win wars. Republicans don’t. End of story.
Have a nice day!
The Other Steve
All this whining about how Bush and the republicans are war-mongerers, when the fact is it is the Democrats who have started every major war in the last century.
Not to mention, they created slavery, the federal reserve, federal income taxes, Japanese concentration camps and not one but two atom bombs dropped on innocent civilians.
And you expect us to rally around the Democrats?
TR
Nabalzbbfr left the same droppings at Sadly No.
I think he’s real. Real fucking stupid.
jake
Comments like this:
made me predict the fRight would vilify him as a Librul Terrist Hugger. My bad.
The sad thing is he’s repeating an idea already put forward by Rick “Mandog” Santorum and some fruitcake who is currently in the House of Reps.
It’s like some nightmarish After School Special. Instead of some lighthearted teen adventure that teaches everyone the value of co-operation, we’ve got 9/11 Part the 2d where thousands of people are wiped out to teach everyone the value of unity.
The real fun will begin if more legislators take up the call for another day of mass death. They Want 2 Kill Us! (TM) no longer works for keeping the masses in line. Perhaps these fucknuts will think We Need Them 2 Kill Us 2 Teach Us a Valuable Lesson! (TM) will sell better.
Hey, maybe that can be the defense for Republicans who are caught in sex scandals involving non-consenting adults. Foley can say he wanted to teach the pages an important lesson about not taking candy from strangers. Those two Young Republicans can say they wanted to teach their fellow Young Republicans about the hazards of drinking too much.
Gee, maybe a couple of Republicans will buy a Crown Vic, modify it, come to DC and shoot people at random in order to once again give us the sense of unity we felt during the Beltway Sniper incident!
Or maybe they’ll just admit they get off on pain and fear and open a Republi-Dungeon.
The Other Steve
We are not fighting a war on Terror. Terrorists are fighting a war on us!
capelza
TOS, I have one quibble…the Democrats CREATED slavery?
capelza
Actually I have more quibbles than that, but that’s the glaring one.
yet another jeff
Exactly, TOS, this proves the Dems are soft on defense.
jake
Yeah, the have a time machine which they use to travel through time spreading evil. It is a known truth that Harry Reid talked Eve into biting that apple. Then he killed the first guy who wrote the story down, scratched out his name and wrote “a snake.”
jake
Yeah, they have a time machine which they use to travel through time spreading evil. It is a known truth that Harry Reid talked Eve into biting that apple. Then he killed the first guy who wrote the story down, scratched out his name and wrote “a snake.”
AWJ
“nabalzbbfr” is a semi-regular at Glenn Greenwald’s blog (not to mention quite a lot of liberal and ex-Bushie blogs, generally copypasting exactly the same comments in all of them). One of the other regulars at Glenn’s claims that they know him in RL and that he’s the real deal, not a spoof.
I wonder what it’s like to be neighbours/coworkers with someone who salivates over the idea of the President siccing tanks and C-130 gunships on a “disobedient” Congress (an actual Nabby comment at Glenn’s–check out his Salon comment history…)
demimondian
Actually, capelza, it’s supportable that the Dems created chattel slavery in the US — the Dems *were* the party of the Southern elite as soon as they had a party. So the roots of the party do coincide with the roots of chattel slavery.
jake
Spoof rating: -8.
It would have been -10 but the complete bollixing of history added a few points. Next time try it in all caps or claim that Harriet Tubman would have voted for George Bush. Something.
demimondian
-8? Jeebus! Tough audience today.
jake
Cer-Rist! Make that -15. You’re supposed to come back with a full-scale ALL CAPS RANT AGAINST THE MOONBATS!!
Oh, why do I bother?
demimondian
Jake, what kind of _ad hominem_ BS is that? Does it sting too much to be associated with the party of Jim Crow, the lynch mob, and the Klan. Gosh, I’m so f*king sorry. I forgot that you folks in the “reality-based” community don’t really like the truth.
Dishonest, deceptive scum. It’s just what you are.
[There. Is that better?]
TenguPhule
Fear makes people do stupid things.
Like believe Republicans.
fecapult
Concerning Stu Bykofsky –
I find it hillarious that armchair quarterbacks have no concept that it may just be their city that is the next 9/11. Another 9/11 would be great please, so long as it’s somewhere else. And don’t kill ME please, of course, but any of those nameless unimportant masses drifting outside of my field of vision is just fine – they’re malcontents and not united with me anyways.
Anyone got a screenprinter? Can we send this guy a shirt that says “What we need is another 9/11” on the front, and “Willing to take one for the team” on the back?
lou
Uh, sorry, but it was Abraham Lincoln (R) who started the income tax. And the first person to pay it was proud and had his picture taken with Lincoln.
SECfootball
Interesting post. I don’t think the GOP would want an attack now, as Bush is still in office, rather, the GOP would want an attack after Obama assumes power in the first year, to opportunistically frame at him as weak on national security, and begin building their case for 2112. Its hard for anyone to be good on security, when constituents of your own country EVEN PUBLICLY suggest a terror attack is beneficial to their own political party’s goals. Consider that Charlie Black, McCain advisor, even went as far as analyzing that a terror attack during the pre-election months would help the McCain campaign- this is incredibly sick: To suggest that if the terrorists strike now, that this is a stroke of good fortune? That the murder of innocent American citizens is being assessed for political value to the GOP. Where is the outrage for such an evil comment? This is a clear glimpse into the ruthless, selfish, dark soul of the modern GOP. Obama should keep a firm eye on the GOP, equally as much as radical islamists. If there is an attack in 2009, ask yourself, "who benefits from this?"… heck, the GOP isn’t being very shy about saying "we would".