Yesterday, after the latest Osama bin Laden video was released, David Kurtz noted that both sides of the political divide "may be tempted to use bin Laden's words to some perverse advantage," but suggested everyone show some restraint. David explained, "Bin Laden is a crazy, evil man. No one should take any pleasure in trying to exploit his rantings for their own partisan purposes." Arguing the same point, I suggested, "Might we be better off not trying to make use of the rambling tirade of a monster who killed 3,000 Americans?"

No such luck.

Last night on PBS' The NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks compared 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden's latest video message to "lefty blogs," saying the al Qaeda head is like "one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page."

Brooks, supposedly one of the media's favorite "serious" grown-ups, is playing the same offensive game far-right activists have been playing for years: tying the 9/11 architect to the left. It's insulting and ridiculous, but Brooks' sentiment was echoed, aggressively, by the usual suspects.

I suppose this is all fairly predictable, and not worth getting too worked up over. Things haven't gone too well for the right when it comes to the military (stretched to the breaking point), counter-terrorism (increased terrorist attacks around the globe every year since 9/11), combating al Qaeda (which has used Iraq as a successful recruiting and fundraising tool), or U.S. foreign policy (our international standing has reached its lowest ebb in a generation), so I guess it makes them feel better to argue that fundamentalist terrorists and secular liberals share some kind of ideology. Whatever.

Having said that, it's probably worth noting, from time to time, that if Osama bin Laden were to sit down and write a gameplan for what he'd like to see the United States do since 2001, it would look eerily similar to the approach taken by the Bush administration over the last six years.

In this sense, Brooks' comments, and those from other far-right voices, are part of a classic Rovian strategy -- identify your rival's strength, and go after it vociferously. Indeed, the strident rhetoric and the nonsensical finger-pointing reeks of desperation, as if the president's political supporters hope that if they scream "OBL (hearts) Democrats" loud enough, no one will notice that Bush's presidency has been everything al Qaeda could have hoped for, and more.

It's kind of sad, when you think about it.