Marshall: Cheney advanced al Qaeda agenda

It was bound to happen. For years since 9/11, Republicans have suggested that anti-war dissent helps al Qaeda. Now Josh Marshall, an influential center-left blogger, has reversed the charges, arguing that "It's hard to imagine that there's anyone in this country not under active federal surveillance who has done more to advance the al Qaeda agenda than Dick Cheney":

Why complain about anything Dick Cheney says? The man is simply too big a fool to hold any job of responsibility in the national government. Think of his history of failure, terrible judgment, reckless endangerment of the country. It's hard to imagine that there's anyone in this country not under active federal surveillance who has done more to advance the al Qaeda agenda than Dick Cheney.

I know that seems like hyperbole or a throwaway line. But it's actually very true. Is America stronger now than it was before the Cheney era? Does al Qaeda have more fertile ground for proselytizing or less?

Marshall returned to this theme in a later post:

How many American deaths is this goof [Cheney] responsible for? And who in this country has done more to advance the al Qaeda agenda and make the US more vulnerable to attack?

The problem is that this sort of rhetoric inevitably slides into demagoguery. Saying someone is "advancing" the terrorist agenda carries insinuations of treason, particularly when comparing Cheny to people under federal surveillance. And we just don't know what al Qaeda wants.

The dystopian outcome is that both sides start framing every move by their opponents as advancing the al Qaeda agenda, and we spend all our time trying to mind-read terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan rather than having an actual debate about the best anti-terrorism policy.

Comments

[Rob]

You say, "It was bound to happen," as if it hasn't been happening for years.

The Democrats have said time and time again that the Iraq war has diverted efforts from the hunt for bin Laden and has undermined the war on terror. That's fine. Maybe they're right in their criticism, maybe they're wrong, but it's their privilege to make the argument.

What is striking, however, is that when Republicans say a Democratic proposal will have the effect of undermining the war on terror, the Democrats falsely charge that their patriotism has been questioned.

Considering the effect of Administration policies or of Democratic counterproposals is perfectly legitimate and indeed should be encouraged as a subject of debate. What should be condemned is the attempt to stifle discussion by conflating criticism of one's position with a challenge to one's patriotism.

[Lettuce]

The problem with your analysis is that not only does it "inevitably" slide into "both sides are equally badism", it also inevitably slides into demagoguery.

Congratulations.

[john]

Marshall is right that Cheney has advanced the al Quaeda agenda. His bluster and demagoguery may be over done, but consider that one of Bin Laden's steps in his remaking of the middle east was to have the U.S. involved in an unwinable ground war the region. Guess what, Bush/Cheney have done what Bin Laden hoped for! That would rally the radicals in the area to go fight the U.S. He might not have gotten as many followers to go to fight us as he may have thought would, but Bin Laden sees us tied down and in a no win a no win situation.