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?
H/T: John Cole.
Hinderaker goes on to invite his readers to "contribute your thoughts on why the Democrats are the terrorists' favorite party, and why they--so far, anyway--don't seem to mind."
(For more of the sort, see Protein Wisdom.)
Captain's Quarters has a great response, titled, "Not going to bite."
Actually, Zarqawi's successor had a lot more to say about America and Americans. He also called George Bush the "most stupid President" in history, and he requested that Bush stick around in Iraq because AQ terrorists hadn't killed their fill of Americans. It's the kind of stupid rant that makes radical Islamists and their sympathizers swoon with delight, but is filled with hyperbole and crude attempts at psychological warfare and propaganda.
Radical Islamists want to divide Americans in order to defeat us. They will play on our differences, stoking the fires of resentment and generating more hatred between us than we have against our enemies. AQ understands that the only way they can possibly beat the US is to get us to grind to a halt with partisan warfare at home, paralyzing our ability to fight them on the battlefield and sapping our will to put them out of business. This video is transparently calculated to give enough ammunition to both sides of the political divide to do that job. Besides, if we take Abu Hamza at his word about the Democrats, then we have to take him at his word about Bush as well, and about our troops.
... We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts. They are Americans, and Americans put them in charge, and they have earned the right to show us how they will face the enemy now that they control the agenda. If they fail, I'll be the first to castigate them for losing ground to the terrorists. ...
The reality is that we cannot win the war on terror without the Democrats after these midterm elections. Rather than continue with antagonizing rhetoric, we'd better find ways to engage them rationally in this effort if we want to survive. I'm hoping we can find common ground with them now that they have the responsibility to govern. If we can't, then let's criticize them for their actual failures, and not get so intent on grasping at any way to attack them that we start becoming repeater stations for the ravings of genocidal lunatics.
See also Captain Ed's follow-up, "Still Not Biting."
At least for me, this is as good a litmus test as any to separate conservatives I respect from ideologues who traffic in knee-jerk partisan rhetoric.
Shortly before the elections, on CNN, Lynne Cheney ripped into Wolf Blitzer for airing a video made by the Iraqi insurgents that showed the shooting of American soldiers, asking such questions as, "why are you running terrorist propaganda?" and "Why do you give the terrorists the floor?" Perhaps the right-wing bloggers who are using al-Masri's statement to paint the Democrats as de facto allies of the terrorists should be asked the same question: Why are you amplifying terrorist propaganda? Why, in the apt words of Captain Ed, are you serving as repeater stations for the ravings of genocidal lunatics?
More: In the comments, Joan points out that I recently criticized Lynn Cheney for accusing CNN of "running terrorist propaganda," and asks if I'm saying that it's proper to level the same accusation at those who use the al-Masri video to imply that the Democrats are terrorist-friendly. Actually, I was making a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" point. But I think there is a major difference between airing a terrorist propaganda tape, clearly labeled as such, for its news value, and using a terrorist's propaganda statement to accuse fellow Americans of being allies to the terrorists. Nor do I think that any American has any obligation to refute such a statement.