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.