I don't remember exactly when the Intelligencer started featuring Erick Erickson's political column but he appears to have become one of their go-to columnists when the paper's extremist outrage needs to be expressed. (See an earlier post about Erickson's views on Charleston and the confederate flag in June.) Erickson has said lots of nasty things about President Obama (see here, for example) previously but this Wednesday's Intelligencer column on the president's agreement with Iran sets a new low for him and the local "newspaper" that prints him. The column's title is "Obama Rooting for Terrorists"(it's not on the Intelligencer site but you can find the column here) and in case we missed it, his first sentence restates the title:

I struggle to be less provocative than to suggest the president is rooting for terrorists who would harm us.

The column is one long run-on attack on the president that concludes:

The president has never met an enemy of this nation he did not want to help."

Let's see -- not only does the president want terrorists to harm us, he also wants to help them harm us. Why would the Intelligencer print this garbage? If the Intelligencer really wanted to closely examine the deal with Iran, they could have easily printed any number of conservative columnists who have raised questions about the proposed agreement without questioning the president's loyalty. No, the Intelligencer chose Erickson because his column's purpose is to attack the president's loyalty. My hunch is that, like the Charleston flag issue, Erickson is a stand-in for the editor's beliefs. How pathetic.