"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) 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–"
Of course, this necessitates some Elmer Fudd-esque backtracking…
"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."
…
When pressed to clarify, Sessions said he was not comparing the House Republican caucus to the Taliban, the Muslim fundamentalist group.
"I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency," Sessions said before being interrupted by an aide.
That's a hard one to undo, especially considering that people on the left have been comparing religious fundamentalist Republicans to the Taliban, fairly or not, for a long time. It's hard not to think of Bill Mahler and Dinesh D'Souza getting into hot water for saying the 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards.
Perhaps, at least, Sessions will unwittingly help with this further step into reality-based nuance.
