Unity is overrated. Furthermore, it's generally a bad thing. But a liberal writing for the Philadelphia Daily News pines for consensus so much that he wishes for another 9/11 to achieve it. Stu Bykofsky complains of "how splintered we are politically." North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and other such hotbeds of despotism, Stu, have no such problems. Unity generally comes from outrageous violence, either from without, as was the case in World War II, or from within, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Even when unity comes naturally, it usually stems from conformism and non-thinking. I'll take beautiful incoherence, anarchy, and disorder over ugly unity, structure, and rigidity, anyday.

Stu Bykofsky is a "morally repugnant neo-con slug."

See Further:

Pitching For More Dead Americans: A Neo-Con Fetish
The Ward Churchill of the demented right-wing has a deathwish for terror in order to unite the country
Paul Joseph Watson

Another feverish Neo-Con has come out of the closet and admitted to enjoying the fetish that he shares with scores of other Administration apologists - a deathwish for more terror and more dead Americans in order to unite the country behind Bush.

"ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America," laments Stu Bykofsky in his Philadelphia Daily News column .

"Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.
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."

That's right - we need more terror or the terrorists will win!

Bykofsky is disappointed that 600,000 plus dead civilians along with thousands of slain troops in Iraq isn't enough to convince Americans that the war should be prosecuted with more vigor, so he's yearning for a kick up the backside in the form of thousands of dead Americans at home.

One could be forgiven for being cynical and thinking that Bykofsky, a plodding Neo-Con hack who nobody had heard of before last night, was just pushing the boat out in a desperate ploy to get a link on the Drudge Report, but reading his previous frenzied Bush administration boot-licking columns it becomes clear that Bykofsky actually means it .

Bykofsky screeches about the perils of "global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children," and then invites them to slaughter more Americans - and even helps pinpoint the targets they should attack!

"The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system," gushes Bykofsky.

Perhaps he should volunteer to send his own kids into those targets as jumbo jets are slammed into them, since Bykofsky is so eager to witness more American blood spilled in the name of the empire.

Or is there a greater threat? If Bykofsky has the courage of his convictions behind him, would he be willing to strap himself with explosives and run into a crowded shopping mall for the good of the country?

Obviously not, but only in using such extreme examples as a parallel can we begin to fathom the vulgarity of Bykofsky's remarks.

Heroes and villains - The brave firefighters that ran into burning buildings on 9/11 to save those that perished with them, and Stu Bykofsky - a morally repugnant Neo-Con slug who yearns for more scenes like this to rescue the reputation of his master, George W. Bush.

Bykofsky's warped logic is not confined to the domain of attention seeking hacks - the yearning for terror is a shared fetish amongst Neo-Cons, policy wonks and academics alike.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, recently told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo , which yearned for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

Last month, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.

And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

An army of Neo-Cons secretly share the same fetish - they would exploit a hollow opportunity to say "I told you so," even at the expense of thousands of dead dads, moms, sons, daughters and babies.

Bykofsky and his cohorts are so aghast that the majority of Americans now take them for what they are - maniacal devotees to a blood soaked and failed neo-conservative doctrine - that they'd rather see innocent people be blown to bits than admit they're wrong.

In some countries, this kind of demented rhetoric is illegal - it's classified as glorification of terror in Britain, and their rants are no less volatile than some of the propaganda spewed by Muslim clerics who have been arrested and deported for advocating violence.

These rabid blowhards should be thankful that America still clings on to its first amendment - in the face of a terrorist assault that they encourage - otherwise they would soon find out that openly pitching for mass murder doesn't sit too well with the authorities.

Bykofsky has just written himself into history as the Ward Churchill of the delirious right-wing and the two share a lot in common.

Both express the uncanny ability of being able to match the ignorance of their comments with the depth of their depravity.

I guess there is no hope in trying to keep neocons from being called on the "right" (because left and right categorization is hopelessly arbitrary and senseless), but these A-Hs are Left. They are ideologues whose faith and hope and love rest in government power and the "unity" of the people in the government. They simply are not conservatives.

Dan
"I'll take beautiful incoherence, anarchy, and disorder over ugly unity, structure, and rigidity, anyday."

Let's put that to the test, how about you give us the username and pass code to your site so we can
all post on it and redsign it to our own desires?

well, i seen the article, and i must agree. the point he was making was the fact that we are not taking this war seriously. we dont have the back bone to fight and win this war. so he said he hoped for another 9/11 to get us all on the same page. i just hope its san fran, or some other gayboy love nest that gets blasted. but then the libs will cry why george? why george didnt you stop this?! its sad to say but even another 9/11 wont bring us together.

Hey tagmnbagm, have a little case of homophoia do ya? Perhaps some homo-erotic suppression?? lol

errr umm, I meant, homophobia

You may not want to believe it 'General', but not all of us who are digusted by h0m0$exuality are suppressing something.

For those of you who aren't, go for it.

dats what i think asdf.

Opus, Dan was talikng about the political sphere and nothing else. You can't assume that his acceptance of incoherence, anarchy, and disorder extends any further than that.

I think I prefer more authentic political freedom (that is much less government) and more social and cultural unity.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/white-house/dick-cheney/

Yeah, right. Here's a better and more accurate one....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/white-house/bill-clinton&hitlery-rotten-clinton/

Two sides of the same coin my friend

I don't believe so. If you want to start a list, I betcha my list of (provable and documented) dirty deeds by the Clintons' runs a heck of a lot longer than your list on Cheney. That is, if one can even be compiled.