The bullshit continues from one of the silliest people on the intertrons:
One basic question emerging from the midterm election is: to what extent did the terrorists win? We will have a lot to say about this over the days to come, but here are a few preliminary thoughts.
I don’t think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. See, for example, this article by Aaron Klein. And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates.***
Do the Democrats feel at all sheepish at having their victory hailed by al Qaeda? Do they feel any pressure to demonstrate to the American people that they are not a de facto ally of the terrorists? Not as far as we’ve noticed so far. But when the Democrats stop celebrating, they may want to pause long enough to consider a simple question: Why are the terrorists so happy that they won?
The Democrats are not even in control, yet John has discerned the terrorists are happy. He has decided that the rise in violence prior to the election is “generally understood” to be an intentional act to persuade the election. Some preliminary thoughts:
It was generally understood by John Hinderaker that Terri Schiavo was a bon-bon and an espresso away from a walk,
and it was “generally understood” by this Great Lakes buffoon that Iran is an Arab nation (wrong buffoon on the second one- like the breathless babble of a pre-schooler, the Powerline nonsense all runs together, and I confused Paul’s ramblings with J0hn’s. It is Saturday, and I am too lazy to find more of John’s silliness, so you can put in the comments for me if you so desire).
Suffice it to say, it is “generally understood” around here that John Hinderaker is a total idiot. The idea that the terrorists know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican any more than Hinderaker can think his way through the difference between Shia/Sunni is laughable.
Reasonable people can only conclude that there are certain folks in the GOP will say anything for political advantage. John Hinderaker is one of them. He should be ignored, or if you must pay attention, ridiculed. For this foray into sheer idiocy, John Hinderaker has now earned his own category here. In the future, when a Republican says something stupid or vile simply for partisan gain, we will call the gaffe a “Hinderaker” and file it appropriately.
Glenn Greenwald seriously address this nonsense.
*** Update ***
BTW- It is “generally understood” in the Arab world and elsewhere that Don Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes. When is John Hinderaker going to start his campaign to force Rumsfeld to stand trial?
*** Update #3***
Mona offers this up as one of Hinderaker’s gems:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
*** Update ***
More deep thoughts:
I join with Ed in hoping that we can prevent the Democrats from delivering Iraq to the jihadis, but my estimate of their good faith is lower than his. The Democrats have staked everything, politically speaking, on the proposition that the Iraq war is a failure and a disaster. They have every interest in ensuring that our effort there does, in fact, fail. I think, in short, that the terrorists are reading the Democrats’ intentions correctly.
I should add that by “the Democrats,” I don’t mean every rank and file member of that party, many of whom no doubt want America to succeed. I’m referring to almost all of the party’s national leadership and the large majority of its elected officials.
Despite all their talk, we are not dealing with serious or sane people.
*** Update ***