John Gibson hosts Stu Bykofsky to defend "we need another 9/11" column
Reported by Chrish - August 10, 2007 -
Usually on FOX when an outlandish, unpopular, or contrary opinion or theory* is advanced, the on-air personalities mount an organized opposition, frequently bolstered and/or led by other Murdoch holdings like the New York Post and The Weekly Standard. Today the idea was advanced by conservative columnist Stu Bykofsky that America would benefit from another 9/11-type attack.
* I should qualify that: those ideas that run counter to the prevailing Bush/FOX talking points.
In the lead-in to the column, titled "To save America, we need another 9/11" he wrote:
"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."
When Ward Churchill wrote the essay "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" shortly after 9/11, nobody noticed. But when it was dredged up 4 years later and Bill O'Reilly got his hands on it, one sentence, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it," was cherry-picked and a huge ruckus was raised that he compared 9/11 victims to Nazis. The witch hunt was on and last month Churchill was fired from his tenured position at University of Colorado, although he intends to appeal.
Former morning talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell wants Bush and Cheney impeached and has said as much on ABC's The View. She has also encouraged viewers to Google the Gulf of Tonkin incident and to read up on the myriad of unanswered questions still surrounding the events of 9/11. FOX went to town on her, with big shots John Gibson, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the three stooges on Fox and Friends hammering her daily. She decided, during this FOX-created maelstrom, to not return to the show when her contract expired in June, but left before the end of the contract when she and co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck had a big fight on air over the latter's lack of support of O'Donnell, who was accused of non-support of the troops. FOX was relentless in targeting O'Donnell and even went so far as to attack ABC and parent company Disney.
Other examples include the sex-ed-panel at Boulder High School, where the school, the panelists, the board of education, and the town of Boulder were vilified and criticized for comments, taken completely out of context, that Bill O'Reilly deemed inappropriate (even though, as his high-school student guests pointed out, he expressed essentially the same point of view in his "O'Reilly Factor for Kids.")
Why, just yesterday John Gibson was all over the New York Times for publishing (a blog item on its website, not in the paper, it should be noted) a speculative column and answers from readers about possible methods to use for another terrorizing attack on the US.
So today, after the Philadelphia Daily News columnist raised the premise that "another 9/11" could be just what this country needs to pull together again, was he similarly vilified on FOX? No, he appeared as a guest and was allowed to explain his comments and put them into context, and was aided in backing away from the more unacceptable language (the word "need" appeared in the headline, which he disowned). Gibson did not brand him irresponsible, or a traitor, or a terrorist-enabler, or a Bush-hater, or an America-hater, or any of the other labels applied to non-neo-conservatives who raise intriguing and unapproved points of view.
The two agreed that another attack on American soil is inevitable, and it is going to take a lot of dead to remind complacent citizens who the enemy really is. Hmm, Rick Santorum said we can almost expect one.
The unequal treatment afforded to "insiders" and "outsiders" on FOX is glaring.