I’m way late to this party — stupid Panetta hearings! — but judging from this interview with Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), the GOP has apparently decided to model itself on the, uh… well…
"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that 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."
You know, in the past, when I compared President Obama’s governing style to a counterinsurgency campaign, I wondered if I was going too far. But if this is how Sessions wants it, then clearly it follows that Obama should follow solid GOP advice for how to deal with the Taliban. Tomorrow, Pete Sessions and his colleagues should find themselves bound and goggled in the belly of a C-130 and taken to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, where they will enjoy an hour of exercise a week. Eric Holder and the rest of the Justice Dept. should file papers blocking the access of the congressional GOP to legal representation or meaningful due process, preferring instead to create an ad hoc system for determining the degree to which the GOP poses a meaningful threat to Barack Obama and releasing congresspeople accordingly. And, really, what’s the alternative? The American people decisively proved in November that they’re not willing to house GOP congresspeople in their districts.
Now, this might not be a really American way of doing things – I’m in favor of trying the House GOP in civilian courts with full due process rights and Goddamn the fearmongers who say we’re risking our security by doing so — but, you know, they’d at least get a meal of orange chicken and other delicacies. And indefinite detention without charge is pretty bad, but it’s not, like, a top marginal tax rate of 40 percent or anything, which is how you’ll know if this country descends into tyranny.
Crossposted to the Streak.



11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Umm, yeah.
In my experience with insurgencies, you almost always get a bunch of doughy old white guys in expensive suits and tasseled loafers come down from the hills to set up roadblocks and check your car for social spending…
mikey
will they get to have their prayer rugs/accessories (and accompanying holy books) for daily use in their cells?
maybe they will learn the difference through the grapevine between rendition and extraordinary rendition, which is something that so far they don’t understand.
I’m still trying to get past Sessions’ claims that the analogy with the Taliban is because “the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with”. What sort of sense does that make at all? Whose “commands”? And except for the broad Constitutional guidelines, aren’t there a set of new rules this session?
And under what system of government would this give the Republicans to fight an insurgency with an elected Congress and Presidency?
It sounds treasonous to me…just as the Taliban are considered treasonous under Afghanistan’s current government. If you are going to become an insurgent then one better win, because the consequence is facing a firing squad. Even under our own Constitution “the militia shall be called up in cases of invasion or insurrection.”
Maybe now you’ll give up your bullshit about torture never being justified.
YES!
Well thanks for the clarification. Almost had me confused for a second.
This is why reporters suck. There’s nothing you can say to them that will solicit the response “What the fuck are you talking about”. Not only that, but they’ll then report the batshit insane nonsense noises you just made.
What? Some idiot verbally hangs himself in an interview and it’s the reporter’s job to bring him back to life?
Hangs himself ? That sounds like he had an stroke.
Sure, he’s clearly suggested that a taliban-like-insurgency would be a model to follow*. We got that from the first sentence though. Meanwhile the rest of what he has said makes no sense whatsoever. He’s not talking to a fkn wall, so yeah, it is the reporter’s job who he is addressing to interject and get some sense out of him.
Is there no nonsensical combinations of sounds that aren’t worth reporting ? How about if he just gurgled for 4 minutes ? Could we get a transcript of that too ?
You’re a reporter and apparently you’re not with me on this.
Well, I’ll look forward to your stenographing of Sarah Palin’s frontal-lobe-averse musings on non-linear subjects, verbs and sports references in single, flow-on sentences for the next decade.
The alternative being that someone could just ask the bitch WTF she’s talking about as though the rest of us have more interesting things to read than shit like this.
* I’m getting a strong sense of deja vu here. Did someone else do this very recently ?
I really am intrigued by this.
We all remember that this woman. No matter what she said, she would have that reported on and mused about every day during that campaign as the lead story or a contender for it. By a literal army of reporters, charged with bringing the big issues to the public.
When we factor in the merits, thoughtfulness, reasoning and importance of her arguments, should this make the reporting fraternity proud of how they covered her ? Or downright ashamed that they treated such drivel as worthy of the attention of adult audiences ?
What was it that made that youtube beauty contestant with the education/geography issues exceptional ? Why was she the only person we’ve so far managed to dismiss as being unworthy of any further attention ?
She had things to say about relevant issues. A lot of people heard those things and she certainly made news. Where were the followup interviews ?
I like your comment very much.
I think that some of the statements made by our politicians are indicative of both a profound lack of respect for the public and severe neurological disorder.
Every once in a while a reporter listening to this should be required to pull out a club and treat them like a baby seal.
Really, if the reporters are worried about keeping the damage, why can’t I just read this instead:
“When asked for a response, the congressman was unable to form a complete thought or sentence”.
That conveys everything it needs to and without causing a headache.