Friday, August 10, 2007

This Is Not 2001

Stu Bykofsky, a self-described "sick bastard" who writes for the Philadelphia Daily News, thinks he has the solution for what ails the American body politic:

One month from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.

What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

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.

Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and division is weakness.

Ol' Stu has forgotten something: we were just as deeply divided as a nation before 9/11 attacks as we are now. Or has he forgotten Al Gore's brazen attempt to steal the 2000 presidential election from George W. Bush? Hell, we were divided right through the '90s, with Sick Willie unable to capture a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections yet claiming phantom "mandates" and trying to govern as though he'd won huge landslides, and then attempting to rule by decree, Hugo Chavez-like, after his extremist excesses cost his party control of Congress two years into his tenure. And who could forget that his was the most scandal-ridden administration in history and yet he nimbly escaped everything except pejury and obstruction of justice over one tawdry tryst out of thousands - and got impeached for his efforts.

Even after 9/11 we as a people weren't truly "unified". A large majority closed ranks behind the President, but hardcore Donks didn't. They simply bided their time until they thought the coast sufficiently clear to resume their rabid Bushophobia, a period that lasted about eight months.

Moreover that degree of unity that we did attain was a function of the spectacular al Qaeda plot seeming to come out of nowhere, which it would not have if the Clintonoids had resolved to fight the "war on terror" that the Bushies have, using those supposedly high approval numbers to mobilize public opinion and raise public awareness of the threat instead of sacrificing thousands of American lives to Mr. Bill's to those same polling numbers. Fighting a REAL war, in other words, instead of the despicable, cowardly aggression he inflicted upon the Serbs.

Another high-profile al Qaeda attack in the homeland - whether it wiped out "The Golden Gate Bridge, Mount Rushmore, Chicago's Wrigley Field, the Philadelphia subway system," or someplace or thing else - wouldn't revive unity, because the original 9/11 attacks were the causus belli of the war the Left has spent the last six years villifying. If anything, it would fracture us even more, as libs hurled fresh recriminations at Bush for the war in Iraq "provoking" the attack and the Right firing back in outrage at the Left's bottomless propensity for mercenary sedition and treason as well as the leaks about the NSA terrorist surveillance program and SWIFT anti-terror financing program and the endless lefty agitation to close Gitmo and lavish all manner of rights and priviliges upon jihadi prisoners and their determination to surrender to al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq making new attacks here at home possible.

But even if what Bykofsky posits were true - and even he admits any unity from another attack wouldn't last long - would that really be worth a single American life, much less thousands more of them taken at the enemy's hand?

I'll leave to others the determination of whether or not he's a "sick bastard". All I can say with certainty is that he hasn't been paying very close attention.