Black Box Report

Just add an "F" to "Stu", and you have...STFU.

Not long ago, after the the attacks in London and Glasgow, I noted that some on the right seemed disappointed that the attacks weren't more successful. Because they weren't, their reasoning went, the British government would not have the political leeway to "do what needed to be done." Racial profiling, Muslim registration and/or deportation, domestic spying, torturing suspects - all of these were, sadly, not on the table because the attacks were amateurish and unsuccessful, and the British public was not sufficiently terrorized to the point where they would allow these police state tactics to be employed. Pity, they thought.

On Thursday, the Philadelphia Daily News' Stu Bykofsky set himself apart from the crowd. In a masterful display of shamelessness, ignorance, and just a certain "Wow, that's f*@%#$-up," Bykofsky wrote that America is divided, and division is weakness. We have no patience for the Iraq War, he wrote, and so we are forgetting who the enemy is and what we must do to "win".

And that another 9/11-like attack, with thousands dead, is just what this country needs to get us back on track.

Let that sink in for a moment. And in that moment, consider that Bykofsky suggested several American landmarks as potential targets for al Qaeda, including the subway system in his own city.

Stu Bykofsky is either the most shameless attention whore ever to put ink to paper - no small feat given Ann Coulter's career - or the most vile, clueless jackass in the nation - again, a crowded field. At-Largely puts it kinder than I would:

There is no justification for the wishful thinking of cowards who think nothing of a few casualties to "unite the country."

Buit we're not talking about a "few casualties" here. Stu's talking about hundreds, thousands preferably, something to make people cower in fear and rely on the authoritarian figures to save them from the Boogeymen. There are so many things wrong with this column, but let's focus on wishing for the death of thousands for the sake of "unity". Stu's selective memory aside, it wasn't the length of the Iraq War that squandered our post-9/11 unity:

Funny how he fails to point out that America was unified until we were lied to repeatedly by this administration which used charlatans as witnesses. And all the war hawks in our media propped up as much terror as they could articulate so that the country feared a nuclear attack by Saddam more than life itself and we just had no choice but to invade a country that never attacked us. The right wing blogs try to perpetuate this fear every chance they get and like Malkin, they get upset when a bridge collapses in Minesota and the government quickly rules out terrorism...And so it goes...

America was united by both a sense of grief for the loss of innocent lives and the natural desire to see those responsible brought to justice. Now, different people's definition of "justice" may vary, but the idea of going into Afghanistan to neutralize the Taliban, dismantle al Qaeda and get bin Laden was overwhelmingly popular with the public - myself included. But once the word "Iraq" started creeping into the White House's talking points, the needle scratched across the record and people rightfully questioned the wisdom - or utter lack thereof - of this decision. That every one of the administration's justifications fell, one by one, by the wayside only served to further dissipate our national sense of unity. The Carpetbagger Report notes a few other things Stu left out:

First, welcoming the slaughter of thousands of innocents is pure insanity. Second, and this is the problem I have with every piece calling for increased unity, what, pray tell, should our “singular purpose” be?

...he’s missing the point of the national discourse. Bykofsky wants another attack to bring us together, but he lazily skips over the hard part — together around what?

...We should have “righteous rage,” but he doesn’t say how we should channel that anger into something productive. We should “quell the chattering of chipmunks,” because Bykofsky apparently prefers not to listen to political debate.

This is not only a prescription for inviting mass murder, it’s also a call for unity for unity’s sake, which is hollow and meaningless.

Americans debate, Stu. We disagree. It's what we do in a democracy. So unless you're trying for an authoritarian police state, there IS a problem of having unity just for unity's sake:

I don't understand this yearning for a time of "unity." Its basic translation is a time when everyone who disagreed with me decided it was best to shut the hell up for awhile and when the patriot police had a good time hunting for dissidents. That's an unhealthy state of affairs, not a healthy one.

Now we're getting somewhere.

This idea of extreme measures to "wake people up" is not only illogical, but it's not even new:

Points for Honesty. Crazy-Assed, Moon-Barking, Balls-Out Offensive Honesty. But Honesty, Nonetheless.

Other Bush apologists hinted at it...Stu Bykofsky just went ahead and said it.

It's like they're begging for it. Sadly, Stu Bykofsky has the usual lunatics applauding his idea.

It's not "unity" that Stu and other rightwingers want. It is, and always has been, all about the authoritarianism. Not just so they can get their war on, but so they can have the kind of political climate in which their critics either share their crazed views or are silenced:

We don’t need healing. We need the half of the country that doesn’t believe we are under threat from global jihad to wake up and smell the suicide bomb smoke.

The answer isn’t to pray for another mass terrorist attack. The answer is to educate the sheeple about our enemies, name them, shame them, fight them overseas, and fight them and their apologists with every fiber of our collective being here at home.

There is no "unity" for this crowd, only obediance. Anything that detracts from their goal of an authoritarian police state is to be beaten into submission. All in the name of...what? Keeping us "safe"? From who? For what? For a bunch of people who idolize Reagan, they are frighteningly quick to embrace a shoddy fascist state in which the government monitors its citizens, rights are trampled and all other nations cower in fear. This is what they would have the "Shining City Upon the Hill" become:

Certainly, Islamic terrorists are a dangerous threat. They can crash airplanes and skyscrapers; they can bomb subways and commuter trains. But Islamic terrorists can’t destroy America. There aren’t enough of ‘em to storm our capitol and occupy our land from sea to shining sea. Only we can destroy America, from within. And some of us are doing a heck of a job.

But the Stu Bykofskys, the Michelle Malkins, the John Gibsons of the world will remain isolated from reality, and from the rest of us that refuse to succumb to hysteria and give up the freedoms that terrorists supposedly hate us for. Still, Joe Gandelman has a suggestion for Stu and I have to admit, again, it's far kinder than mine would be:

...Wishing for another 911?

Save that sentiment — and then repeat it to the families of those who’ll be murdered, if another attack takes place...

Good luck. The coward wouldn't get 3 words out before someone slapped the taste out of his mouth.