Bin Laden hypnotizes Powerline - updated

After reading John Hinderaker's, (AKA "Hinderocket" of Power Line) bizarre "analysis" of Bin Laden's speech, I felt like sending him a sympathy card. One can only hope those thoughts weren't as painful to birth as they are to read. I probably shouldn't worry, though. For one so obviously innoculated by right-thought, I'm sure authoring this brainless twaddle was an exercise in ecstasy.

Mr. Hinderaker submits for our inspection the proposition that Osama Bin Laden has absorbed a few Democratic Talking Points and is now trumpeting them to the world. He says that Michael Moore is the "intellectual leader" of the Democratic Party, ergo, Michael Moore and the Democratic Party wrote Bin Laden's speech. He appears to be serious (If I Mr. Hindraker is writing for the Onion, then I apologize and bow before him.)

First, about Mr. Moore. He is the the intellectual leader of the Democratic Party the way that Sean Hannity, or Larry Kudlow, or Dennis Miller, or Howard Fineman, or ... is the intellectual leader of the Republican Party. In other words, he is not. Moore makes controversial films that in some ways parallel Democratic postions. However, he didn't write the platform and doesn't always reflect the ideas of our candidate. He made a powerful visual essay in Fahrenheit 9.11 that was successful in the marketplace of ideas. Hannity and the others have successful media personas, which they generally use to spread the Republican Word. While they all enjoy status as celebrities, none are party leaders.

Secondly, Hindraker seems to think that Bin Laden needed Moore to point out that Bush sat reading a children's book for seven minutes while the country was attacked. Just a gentle reminder - Bin Laden didn't need Moore to tell him Bush sat blinking. Bin Laden lived it real time. Remember?

As for the rest of it, it doesn't actualy matter what Bin Laden says. He is a master politician and the only thing of which we can be sure is that, just like Bush and Kerry, he is playing to his base. His message is aimed at Arabs, not Americans. If he happens to sound themes critical of Bush, it just means he can read the news [825 page compilation of mainstream news stories detailing President Bush's record. 1.4 MB PDF] Hindraker wonders if there will be any "...Democrats honest enough to be embarrassed that Osama bin Laden has enthusiastically adopted their campaign themes?" The answer is no, unless they are as ill-informed as Republicans appear to be.

The question I ask in return is this: Are there any Republicans honest enough to be embarassed that three years after 9.11, Osama Bin Laden is dancing a jig on prime time TV while our troops face attacks from insurgents created and armed through the incompetence of this President?

Thankfully, the answer to that question is yes.

UPDATE:

Mitch over at a Shot In the Dark has a thoughtful reply to the above post. I enjoyed it. I have a couple of comments, though.

1. I probabaly shouldn't have used the phrase "brainless twaddle." It's redundant. If I had it to do over again, I'd pick "twaddle." I know the Powerline guys aren't dumb. I think the post is small-minded and destructive, however, for reasons listed below.

2. The point of my post was not to "refute" Hindraker's piece, it was to say "So what?" What are we supposed to be embarrassed about? That Bin Laden can read? Whether or not Hindraker actually said Moore wrote Bin Laden's speech, he most certainly implies an unholy alliance with Bin Laden. Otherwise why say Democrats should be embarrassed by it? In doing so, he makes an insulting assumption and does nothing to contribute to intelligent discussion about what Bin Laden's statement means for America. Any similarity between Dem. talking points and Bin Laden's statement are Bin Laden's doing. It is his attempt to win power for himself among his own people and to further divide our country. Hindraker's fact-challenged, substance-free spin only contributes to the latter. That's why I called it twaddle.

3. Mitch pulls out a piece of the article that I changed almost as soon as I published it. It was originally as Mitch has it:

"Secondly, Hindraker seems to think that Bin Laden needed Moore to point out that Bush sat reading a children's book for seven minutes while the country was attacked. Just a gentle reminder - Bin Laden didn't need Moore to tell him he had extra time. Bin Laden enjoyed the favor real time. Remember?"

But about five minutes (Mitch you are fast!) after I published it, I revised it to read:

"Secondly, Hindraker seems to think that Bin Laden needed Moore to point out that Bush sat reading a children's book for seven minutes while the country was attacked. Just a gentle reminder - Bin Laden didn't need Moore to tell him Bush sat blinking. Bin Laden lived it real time. Remember?"

The reason I changed that part of the post is that while I think Bush could have and should have responded with much more awareness than he did, I do not think in anyway shape or form that Bin Laden got an operational advantage from it. My point was that Bin Laden was involved that day and learned of Bush reading the book long before Moore made a big deal of it. Incidentally, I think what I am saying here is more in line with a Dem. talking point.

4. Hannity may not have been on the GOP dais in person, but his virtual self was there. He narrated the RNC welcome video, then used his show to shill for the GOP from the convention floor.

5. The reason I say Bin Laden's comments are primiarily directed to Arabs is that I believe his message is an attempt to gain political clapital among his own people - his base and to divide the US against ourselves. I think he would like to claim he has influence over the US regardless of who wins, which is why he tweaks both Bush and Kerry. He's elevating himself to spokesman for the common Arab. He's dangerous as hell, deserves to die-- but he's also very shrewd. All of his tapes are about recruiting, propagandizing, riveting attention, promotion.

6. The idea that Bin Laden running around today is completely Clinton's fault is laughable. Please stop. It hurts.

Chris