Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban...they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."Who could have said such an idiotic thing?
If you guessed Pete Sessions, give yourself a gold star.
MSNBC's First Thoughts column offers this comment:
Wow, we can think of plenty of other examples of insurgencies (American Revolution, Indian resistance to Great Britain), but the Taliban? Imagine what Drudge would do if a Democrat said this.Their headline: At least he didn’t use a Nazi metaphor.
Hat tip to the two Sessions Watchers who found the article in Huffington Post and National Journal this morning. The Sessions Watcher who found the National Journal article says:
This is a major leader of the House Republican Caucus, the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Sessions is in charge of the strategy and tactics he thinks are necessary to win more seats for Republicans in the House.The Sessions Watcher who found the article in Huffington Post comments:
And he's a fan of the Taliban's tactics.
So let me get this straight, the GOP is taking strategy from Joe the Plumber and the Taliban? I seriously don't understand what the hell Democrats find to be so scary about Republicans.UPDATE: More commentary from National Journal:
To be sure, Sessions isn't comparing GOPers to the Taliban. But ... wow. His poor choice of words is instructive. Defining differences w/Dems isn't the problem. In fact, it's the only choice they have. But if voters feel like the attacks are too heavy-handed or over-the-top, they won't work. This may be the kind of election where a scalpel will be more effective than a sledgehammer. How do you attack Dems if Obama's still popular? Answer: Carefully.
4 comments:
It got a mention in USA Today, too:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/02/a-republican-ji.html
I agree with the commenters on the MSNBC blog. Can't Pete Sessions look to "the good guys" for inspiration instead of the terrorists who did the 911 attack? This is shocking, especially since he's the NRCC chair.
This is the kind thing that made me drop out of going to Republican party events, there's a lot of talk that goes on like that like the other side's the enemy and we're in a war. It's scary and it's not right. We should be able to debate our points without making the other side out to be the enemy and we sure should look for better role models than the Taliban for Christ's sake. What was Pete Sessions thinking when he said that.
Except that the Taliban didn't do 9/11. The Taliban refused to give Ken Lay a good deal on the trans-Afghan pipeline that Enron was financing. We invaded Afghanistan to make sure that the oil industry got cheap rates on their royalties. Further, the Taliban was wiping out the Opium trade which caused problems for the Chinese and the CIA. The Northern Alliance that helped us in Afghanistan, are feudal drug lords. We protect there poppy field even now and help them get their heroin out of the country without Taliban interference.
9/11 was financed by the Bin Ladens and the House of Saud. Business partners to the Bush family. That's why they all got shipped out on the only flights going on 9/12.
Mueller testified that all of the money trails went back to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but these families are untouchable.
Another data point is that there is no clear evidence that Osama Bin Laden survived to see 2001. His obituary was published in the Egyptian press 2000.
Post a Comment