Who writes of yours truly:
Some quick thoughts. First (and I’m doing my best here): my name isn’t Andy. Second: Goldstein seems to be advancing the notion that there are two teams, and I’m now “aligned” with the homophobic one, i.e. the team Goldstein isn’t on. But what if someone’s approach to politics does not devolve into a moronic question of whose “team” you’re on? I know this is a difficult idea for someone like Goldstein or Reynolds to grapple with; it would require thinking, for example.
But let’s assume that Goldstein is making the point that the “left,” whatever that now is, can be homophobic. He, a brave, Republican blogger, thinks I need to know this. Hmmm. That devastating insight somehow never occurred to me for the two decades in which I have been subjected to constant homophobic attacks from the gay left, accused of being the anti-Christ, a diseased faggot, a spreader of disease, my private life ransacked, my reputation lied about, my integrity smeared on a daily basis. Left-wing homophobia? Thanks, Mr Goldstein, for clueing me in. I look forward to your future receipt of slurs and innunedoes for writing what you believe. For the team! (Just don’t mention the rampant, far more virulent and empowered homophobia on the religious right, or you might forget whose “side” you’re on.)
My goodness! How I do offend!
And how poor Andrew is forced to endure!
First, I’m not advancing the idea that there are two “teams” (regular readers of this site know that, on an intellectual level, at least, I have as much of a problem with Sean Hannity’s GOP cheerleading as I do with Bill O’Reilly’s phony populism or Howard Dean’s shrill hatred of all things Republican)â€â€though unlike Andrew I won’t be so coy as to pretend that we aren’t undergoing an ideological battle for the soul of the country, and that while Sullivan ostensibly claims to represent the conservative end of the ideological spectrum, he seems quite happy shilling for progressive policies and methodologies — be it in his support of judicial fiat, or his perpetually self-satisfied demonization of his opponents, or his “reluctant” endorsement of John Kerry (whose ultra-liberal voting record places him as about as close to “conservatism” as Mother Theresa to a Chippendale’s presentation of “Thong of the South”). That Andy does his shilling by using the shopworn rhetorical trick of posting reader emails that give voice to that progressive point of view before pretending to some minor quibble (which he believes keeps his conservative bona fides intact while simultaneously marking him as a deep and open-minded “thinkerâ€Ââ€â€a man willing to pressure the GOP cheerleaders, among whose ranks he counts me) shows just how much he likes to project. I mean, talk about passive-aggressive behavior!
Still, it’s nice to see that Andy’s been reading his Greenwald.
Second, I’m about as close to the religious right as is Sullivan himself, but that doesn’t stop St Andrew from insinuating that I’m part of that particular team—ironic, given that the subtext of his post decries the idea of making political generalizations, even as Sullivan blithely relegates me to a particular side (Andy himself? He plays for Team Truth!) despite having a rather confused idea of my politics. But really, did anyone expect a post mentioning homophobia to go by without Sullivan trotting out the religious right boogeyman—and suggesting that his critics must necessarily be among its enablers?
Here’s the thing: Sullivan claims he’s quite familiar with homophobic attacks from the “gay left” (whatever that now is), and yet he doesn’t appear to have much of a problem with a progressivist agenda that, while it might ultimately push through the policy he wants (legalization of gay marriage), will do so at a price that would be more than a little damaging to the conservatism Sullivan claims to embrace. No doubt he sees himself as being pragmatic when he selectively embraces constitutionally dubious methodologies; me, I just see a guy who has spent the last several years throwing a very embarrassing public temper tantrum.
And even though I am no great fan of the religious right (see Schiavo, Terry) at least one knows where they (ostensibly) stand: hate the sin, love the sinner. Whereas many progressives, it seems to me, have inverted that bromide entirely. Which is to say, judging by my recent experiences in dealing with these paragons to tolerance and “diversity”, it is clear that many on the political left will pretend to love the “sin†(they believe doing so marks them as compassionate and nuanced and provides them the moral high-ground from which to justify their every attempt to deploy an ends-justifies-the-means form of social advocacy), even while they secretly hate the sinner. Which is evident every time an individual for whose “kind†they ostentatiously agitateâ€â€be it an individual homosexual or black or Hispanicâ€â€presumes to stray from the ideological plantation they have so carefully landscaped, and over which they have appointed themselves masters.
And for the record? I doubt very much that Andy’s seen any kind of up-tick in the number of vicious emails from the “gay left†since he’s started calling the US a rogue nation, or suggested (obliquely, as is his wont) that Bush is a dry drunk.
But that won’t keep him from shrieking about his oppression all the same.
****
update: Just because we do a “radio” show together doesn’t mean we share a brain. Just a happy convergence of truthiness, it seems.
****
update 2: About that shopworn rhetorical technique we spoke of earlier…
Note how Sullivan presents himself as above the frayâ€â€unlike other bloggers, he can sniff out Rove’s influence like a determined pig snuffs out a truffle, and he WILL NOT BE USED! And such, my friends, is the depth of his Sullivan’s conservative independence that it not only led him to endorse John Kerry (and he was probably one of only a handful of conservatives who did), but it now has him implying that he is practically the only conservative left alive who can resist Rovian PR gambits!
Of course, in the process of patting himself on the back, he does manage to shoehorn in several off-handed arguments: 1) the SWIFT story this is not a major revelation 2) he can’t see how the leaking of classified information hurts national security (surely, the terrorists must have known we were attempting to monitor their finances), and if he can’t see how it hurts, well, then how dare the administration be bothered by it; and 3) that just as Zarqawi’s death and the Democrats’ own proposed measures on troop redeployment voted on in the Senate were all part of Rove’s latest master PR plan (how Rove got the Dems to go along remains a mystery; do His powers know no bounds?), so too is this attack on the New York Times. For publishing classified information. Leaked illegally. During war time. A PR gambit. And of no consequence. Unlike, say, Andrew’s desire to wed.
All of which arguments I’m pretty sure I already read on TBogg. Not that we should draw any conclusions from that, mind you. Just thought I’d bring it up.
(h/t Allah; more from Tom Elia at The New Editor)
Sullivan’s probably buffed up a bit, but I’m betting you could take him.
St. “My name isn’t Andy” washes away the world’s sins with this sentence.
Actus “comment” in 5, 4, 3, 2,…
At the agency, we’re still following up on how the financial results included in this post of a few years ago by Mr. Sullivan were reported:
“THE RESULTS: Like some election night drama, the counting of checks and PayPal receipts kept the suspense going. But in the interests of full disclosure, we can now let you know that our one-week pledge drive garnered payments from 3,339 people for a grand total of $79,020 – enough to pay for our burgeoning band-width, an intern/assistant, and a salary for yours truly. It’s not exactly venture-capitalism but it’s a great start. We’ve proved, I think, that the web has the potential to deliver truly independent, reader-supported journalism. Well, in fact, you proved it. Thanks so much again.”
As we interpret the IRS regulations, any and all amounts designated as “..a salary for yours truly…” should have been included as taxable income in the year received. We have more work to do before resolving this case.
Most of the attacks that Sullivan has “endured” from the left had to do with his rather passionate support for Bush in the beginning. In the end, his crush on Bush faded leaving him feeling scorned and a little bit dirty as well. Thus his intense anger at all things Bush.
His positions on conservativism it could be argued, were formed by the brown shirt tatics of the gay community in the 90’s. If you can credit Sullivan with anything, you’d have to acknowledge his loathing of people telling him what to do. A condition I am sure you would be familar with, Jeff
.
Watching Sullivan in the last few years slide into this wallow of gay-marrige self pity has been truely instructional. I find Hitchens or Steyn much more amusing and readable Brits.
Sullivan’s comeback was brilliant! I continue to read him, even when I disagree with him. While Goldstein is a master of cutting down his opponent (kinda the Wolcott of the right-wing), Sullivan tears him to shreds on an intellectual level.
Andru always hoped to be chosen by the uniteam in HS sports, because there was no score thus no failure. And ru sat on the non-bench with his spiritual twin Napolean.
Actually, Tom, I think that quote is St. Andrew setting up his victim bona fides. Poor Mr. Sullivan the good independent catholic conservative thinker, tirelessly spreading the good word of the 8 commandments while suffering the slings and arrows of the world’s bigots.
Just get fucking married already Andrew, because frankly it’s getting tiresome watching you let your little head do all your thinking. If you are to be the spokesman for the cause, don’t you think you should take the lumps that come with the gig? King didn’t talk smack from the safe confines of his living room, he went to Alabama and through his action denied that the racist had a right to keep him from his rightful place in the world. What do you do Andy, beside whine about how you are so persecuted?
I thought part of Jeff’s point was that Andrew wouldn’t last 2 weeks, let alone 2 decades, in an Islamic society.
Which isn’t to say that Andrew should just shut-the-fuck-up, but – at a minimum – he should recognize that he’s looking off the stern of the boat and expressing alarm at the icebergs that were missed.
Lately, though, Sullivan has become Walcottian in his regard for Reynolds. Maybe the beagle ought to prepare for some ocicat visitors.
Wow…now that’s a low blow. What did Jeff ever do to you to deserve that?
Isaiah 53
He has really internalized the whole Christ-complex, hasn’t he?
Man, Sully totally shredded that guy who’s nothing like you and all that made-up shit you didn’t say, Jeff.
Exclamation point!
LaurenceB: I’m not certain a tone of waspish dyspepsia equates to intellect, but that may just be me.
Andy, your lack of integrity has nothing to do with your sexuality…unless you count the part where you insist on gay marriages and then insist that it should be OK for people to break the vows you insist they be allowed to make. Your moral vacancy shines through in that.
Kerry akbar!
LaurenceB,
Now that you’ve established that your intellect is overidden by your partisanship and that any reasoning skills you may have once possessed have long since eroded, perhaps you should just join Andy, David Brock and the beagle for a messy manage-a-quatre. If you ask nicely, they may let you cockslap them silly, except the beagle, which
isn’t really on that “team”, except under duress.
Anybody who thinks Sullivan is unaware of the dangers of Islamism gets an F in reading comprehension. News flash: criticizing the conduct of the US in the war in Iraq is not the same as allying oneself with Islamists. How hard is that to understand?
Ah, nothing better than a good Andy smack-down.
TW: Poor Andy don’t get no respect.
proudvastrightwingconspirator,
Thank you for making Andrew Sullivan’s point so succintly.
to draw an analogy from metallurgy and apply it to morality –
pure morals may be more valuable,
but alloys are more useful.
–
I’m okay with the US being 98% ‘Good’ and 2% ‘Badass’ if that’s the optimum level of ‘useful’ needed to function in ‘the World’
For all of Andrew’s Back-of-Hand-to-Brow swooning about morality, the US seems to fall comfortably with a very small pecentage of ‘Badass’
That seems like a circular argument to me.
Sincerely,
Actus
But it surely can be, as past wars have shown us. Now, how hard is that to understand?
I agree that “criticizing the conduct of the US in the war in Iraq is not the same as allying oneself with Islamists”. That’s not the point.
The point Jeff was making here, is that not only is Sullivan ‘subjected to constant homophobic attacks from the gay left’, but he is subjected to constant homophobic attacks from the straight left!
Anybody who thinks that panties on one’s head or being exposed to *gasp* breasts or a barking dog is torture needs their head examined. If Sully really had Islamism figured out, he wouldn’t be so quick to smear the administration and the troops. I know they’re not queer, but they were still smeared. By St. Andy, The Victim.
Feh.
No, simply criticizing the US conduct in Iraq isn’t tantamount to allying oneself with Islamists.
But neurotically obsessing over it, unjustifiably hyping it, and disingenuously conflating it with war crimes and real torture is.
It’s more than a little “ironic”, huh?
That pretty much covers it.
It’s also noteworthy that the far-left only points out homosexuality ,or thier pet cause de joir, and never illuminates the fact that the “lover the sinner, hate the sin” also applies to lying, pride, adultry, sloth ,anger, ect.
I guess it makes it harder to be the “homosexual martyr” when the standard is universally applied to the Christian response to sin.
You get an F for reading comprehension my friend. An ideological battle for the soul of the country isn’t in reference to the US vs radical Islam. It’s in reference to political discourse and the fabric of it’s debate. We all know Sullivan has from time to time recognized the dangers of radical Islam. He clouds the issue with this far reaching moral equivalency of Islamist terror to sleep depriving an enemy combatent.
Your take is the predictable comedic relief of “Did anyone think about the children?!” in regards to any public crises in a Simpsons episode. So just RTFA…. please.
I’m still stuck on that Thongs of the South thing. My god man have you no shame!!!!!
BECAUSE OF THE ELASTICICITY!!!!!!!
What you Christianist fascist homophobes don’t disclose (probably based on your Rovian message machine talking points) is that US forces exposed “terrorists” to fake menstral blood that the “terrorists” thought came from vanginas. VAGINAS!! Do you understand how nazi-like the thought of vaginas are? How it is torture to think about vaginas? Bush = Hitler = Vagina-lovers.
Hey Timmy Mac. Andy’s stealing your schtick.
Vanginas? Oh, God, no! Withheld, have you been in the mescaline again?
As an Sullivan reader who was brought here by his links, I have no doubt the troll sticker will be firmly applied to my post in a matter of seconds. None the less…
This blog was the one that brought Andrew into the fray. Andrew has every right to be offended and respond when he is mentioned in a less than admiring post by Mr. Goldstein. He also has every right to champion a cause that affects him so very closely. Do you honestly expect a gay blogger to sit back and ignore an issue such as the Gay Marriage Amendment? Why would he “shut the f*** up” about it? As far as self righteousness, I have yet to see Sullivan personally attack ANYONE regardless of whether he was attacked first. Attack ideology? Absolutely and intelligently. Personally? Not yet anyway.
BTW, the “rogue nation” out of context quote is tiresome. At least present the whole post.
I’m kinda loathe to comment here, because I have experienced the rabid hatred the academic left fling toward anyone who disagrees, even mildly, with a single one of their precepts; however, geez, Andrew cries and wails with loudity. Jaysus, Andrew, like the commenter above suggested, GET MARRIED. You can in Massachusetts already! Be an example, set an example, get married, and then keep it in either your own or your spouse’s pants. Marriage means talking it all seriously, not just the registry lists.
PLEASE. He is constantly snarking on people, particularly Glenn Reynolds, when they don’t measure up to Andy’s moralizing, usually just because Gelnn hasn’t mentioned a particular issue yet. The amount of narcissism and hate Andy has is breathtaking.
Teams? We’ve got teams? Why didn’t anybody tell me? Which one am I on? Oh, and where’s my shirt?
TW: sat – no, I am not satisfied with the service.
Andrew Sullivan still has a blog? I remember that guy. I stopped reading him a few years ago—right around the time he careened to the Left and started blaming the U.S. for the existence of terrorism.
Oh, and where’s my shirt?
Could be shirts-skins.
FirstTimer,
RTFA, thanks. Does Jeff talk AT ALL about the gay marriage amendment?! Do you people read, like at all? No one questioned Sullivan’s right to respond or post at all. No one said he doesn’t have the right to “champion” a cause. You’ve yet to see Sullivan personally attack anyone, oh really? First, you haven’t read him for the four years I have apparently. Second, it’s totally besides the point. I mean, I’d accuse you of an ad hominem defense but you’re not even sticking to the personal digressions but addressing subjects that totally aren’t in the discussion at all. In all seriousness, no one will label you a troll from posting here with a contrary point of view. I think you’ll just be labled as a knee-jerk reactionist who didn’t bother to read the posts in question.
Isn’t that sort of a double negative? Would homophobic attacks from gays be the same as wholehearted support from straights?
Confused…
You must have missed the Compassionate and Tolerant St. Andy’s intelligent attack on Ann Coulter’s ideology by calling her a transvestite.
Or his similar attack on Ramesh Ponorru (spelling is likely…wrong. Sorry) or other writers for NR.
But, of course, they are conservatives and, therefore, evil.
This is my first visit to this blog, and boy is Goldstein an obnoxious idiot.
One minor thing that keeps standing out is his persistence in calling Sullivan “Andy,” a really weak rhetorical ploy that serves only to make him sound like a juvenile.
Intellectually this guy is fourth-rate. Religious conservatives, he tells us, love the sinners but hate the sin. Here he has made the really embarrassing error of falling for the PR campaign like a sucker. Conservatives say they love the sinner but hate the sin. But they hate both, in fact, which is why all these anti-gay-marriage bills go ridiculously beyond banning gay marriage to banning all legal relationships or arrangements gays might possible make amongst themselves.
You decide whether it’s worse to actually believe this “love the sinner” nonsense, or whether he’s just lying. Doesn’t really matter, I guess.
So, Slippery Pete, you get just ONE warm up comment and then you actually have to get a point.
Is it just me, or did Jeff’s last line
make one think of Andrew as Michael Palin in a mud pit, shouting “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”?
Slippery,
Thanks! OK everybody, pack up and go home. Our gig is up, pants down and all. Boy, it was fun while it lasted. I hate that we all have been shown to be so shallow. Sigh…..
Firsttimer
I used to read Sully, even if I disagreed with him, on a regular basis. I even heard him in wonderful, polite debate on the radio with Dennis Prager.
But he lost me when he started making Same Sex Marriage the ONE single focus lense on which to view every aspect of life and politics. He lead him to lie about his support for Kerry. It is the foundation of his histrionic and dishonest columns about US military “torture”.
I view Sully with the same mixture of pity and contempt I do the ilk holding up “Queers for Palestine” signs in Frisco parades. Sully and brethren willingly ignore what Islamism IS about, and support the Otherside only because they SO hate anyone that even dares question the wisdom or impact of redefining the institution marriage. Islamists are to be “understood” and compared to no one. Americans (and Jews) are to be held to utopian standards.
And, it is ironic to note that Sully’s raison d’etre for every waking moment is something he won’t even honor. Infidelity is something he advocates as “good” for relationships.
LaurenceB/Adam Villani:
I’ve enjoyed the strawman argument and would like to retort. No one has said that Sullivan supports or ignores Islamists maniacal behavior, it’s that Sullivan plays a part is weakening effective means of our ability to wage war by deriding US policy with a stream of ad hominem and unsubstantiated claims against its policy.
Sullivan’s rhetoric is smoke grenade. Of course he “supports fighting the Islamists,” and I don’t doubt that he’s genuine in his hatred towards them, but he’s masked his hatred of the Bush Administration by claiming with his “disagreement” with their policies. In order to do so, he’s blatently lied, accused us of being a rogue nation, claiming that mutilation and booby trapping dead U.S. soldiers is on par with sleep deprivation, while also suggesting some of the most absurd military operations/policies that would make Congressman “Okinawa” Murtha blush (I’d love to footnote them here, but Sullivan for some reason has been above archiving his blog).
Sorry, but your argument doesn’t quite have an answer for why Sullivan turned on Bush right aroudn the whole ban on gay marrage thing. It was all rather convenient, and his ad hominem argumentation and pleas for emotional affectation have been as hollow as your orginal argument.
Odd that you say that, considering that you come off as an idiot right out the door.
You know that how, Mister Conservative-Mind-Reader? Or did all the states in which those bills are somehow finding passage forgot about the whole tolerance thing?
Oh, wait, maybe they’re Red states. Yeah, that’s it.
I stopped reading AS right about the time he decided he was the Pope and gay marriage was the issue of our time. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the Catholic Church says either, but I’m not deranged enough to believe I get to make their rules.
Heck, I’m not even delusional enough to believe I can make my kids follow my rules anymore. (Before anyone blows me in to Child Protective Services, we’re talking ages twenty and up.)
these anti-gay-marriage bills go ridiculously beyond banning gay marriage to banning all legal relationships or arrangements gays might possible make amongst themselves.
Of course, Slipsie, you can source that?
I’m conservative and I AM for same-sex marriage… if and when it is the choice of the people, not the judiciary.
In any state in which this has been put to a vote, almost 2/3’s of voters want the definition of the institution of marriage to remain as it is.
Private relationships are not affected, marriage is a PUBLIC institution.
Use a couple of brain cells, eh? If you have them, of course.
1)Yes, he does take Reynolds to task but never on a personal level. On the issues? Yep. And as far as snark, name me a blogger that doesn’t have some snark. Isn’t that half the reason we read them? Malkin and Kos are the high end, Sullivan on the lower.
2)Get married in Mass? What exactly does that prove? Sullivan’s been with his partner more years than most marriage’s last. Can he visit his partner in the ICU? No. Can he put his partner on his Insurance? 99 times out of 100, no. Can he leave him his estate without dispute? No. This is the problem with the oppostion to gay marriage. You don’t understand that it’s not a matter of a ring on a finger, it’s a matter of equality.
Sort of OT, but does anyone think it’s mere coincidence that *ANDY* Sullivan was “re-admitted” to the mainstream media (Time) only after his descent into BDS?
He took his lumps for truthiness when Howell Raines expelled him from the NYT, but I guess the bandwidth-buying fundraisers began to dwindle, and A.S. got lonely in media wilderness.
I believe the BDS, while certainly spurred by his obsession with gay marriage, is a bit emphasized and exaggerated in order to remain clamped onto a comfortable teat.
Cordially…
I always suspected Andy played for both teams.
Darleen,
I disagree with that comment. Sullivan doesn’t condone “Queers for Palestine,” and I will defend him on that, but he what he is is a lying sack of s#@t when it comes to arguing against US policy in conducting the war. Through his nonsense, he adversely affects our ability to wage war.
It makes him a useful idiot for our enemies nonetheless, but he’s not directly apologizing for Islamists like my bretheren here in San Francisco.
Nobody has suggested that Andy doesn’t have a right to comment on anything he cares to, or to defend himself against any real or perceived attacks.
What is at issue is the coherence of the Beaglemaster’s arguments, not his right to make them.
Jeff’s original post wasn’t an attack. It was pointing out how some members of the “tolerant, progressive” left openly exhibit their disgust for homosexuals by using the term as a slur.
You might want to go back and peruse Andy’s archives here. It would put a lot of what you read on his blog these days into historical context. That link immortalizes the precise moment that Sullivan lost his mind. It holds the key to every word he’s written since that day (February 24, 2004).
If the bookmark within the page doesn’t work, scroll down to the item entitled “War is Declared”.
I used to read his blog regularly myself, and I still remember thinking as I read those words for the first time, “Wow, this guy just went ‘round the bend.”
Can he visit his partner in the ICU? No.
Then Sully is an idiot. No hospital will bar ANY individual, related or not, if the patient has left instructions. That is a private deal, NOT a legal one. Hell, if a patient does not want to see a particular sibling, s/he can BAR that person from ICU.
Everything you list is not automatic for straights either…you think only gay wills get contested???
Ultimately, it matters little whether gay marriage becomes the law of this land. Mr. Sullivan’s real ideological/existential battle is with Rome – Mr. Sullivan will not come to Rome nor will Rome come to Mr. Sullivan. It occured to me that Sullivan’s spiritual agony bears a curious resemblance to that of Waugh’s Sebastian Flyte and he (Sullivan) is just as tragic a character.
DERBYSHIRE AWARD – Joe James writes…
1) How is it not-totalitarian for unelected judges to declare that “marriage” no longer means “man/women” when such a condition pre-exists the State?
2) If the totalitarians declare that marriage now means “2 people,” why is “2-ness” sacred? Why isn’t pologomy more legitimate, given it’s existing history? Why can’t I marry my cousin? Why can’t I marry my brother and sister and some guy I just met?
3) Why does less than 1% of the population get to push around the other 99% and call it “eqaulity”
4) How can Andy constantly slam Derbyshire at National Review as “hateful, evil, etc.” then bitch and whine when the tables turn? Than then bitch and whine when everyone calls him out for falsly and cynically playing a “vicitim”?
I’m not a homophobe, I love fags!
First off, waterboarding is torture, no matter how you slice it. The U.S. waterboards prisoners. Ergo, the U.S. tortures prisoners.
While there are certainly some leftists who claim “moral equivalency” between the U.S.’s torture program and the Islamic lunatics who get their jollies off of blowing people up and cutting their heads off, Sullivan (and others, including me) have NOT said there is a moral equivalency at work there.
The point that he HAS made on torture is that there is a distinct difference between a U.S.A. that prides itself on always treating prisoners with respect and is thus able to claim the moral high ground in any battle and the new U.S. military that only tortures moderately and can thus only pride itself on being able to say “Hey look, we’re not as bad as Saddam Hussein.” It’s gone from being a difference in kind to a difference of degree.
Not only is that intrinsically immoral, but it hurts our position in Iraq. Part of the whole purpose of the war in Iraq is to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim and Arab world, to set up an attractive example that proves that democracy and Western ideals are superior ways to order society than the tyranny of a dictator or theocracy. When the U.S. rounds up suspects willy-nilly, throws them into Abu Ghraib, and tortures them to get worthless intelligence, the locals tend to take it personally.
Moreover, people discuss and debate the behavior of the U.S. military instead of discussing and debating the behavior of Islamist insurgents because the U.S. is a democracy where public opinion and criticism matter, while the Islamist thugs are, shall we say, not exactly open to reasoned debate on their goals and tactics.
We need to be aware of the depth of the evil of our enemies, but the U.S.— a country founded on universal principles, not on geography or ethnicity— needs to be able to convince everyday Iraqis that we’re the people whose example they should follow, with whom they should ally themselves.
Hmmmm.
The Ultimate Truth is that I’ve found a piece of dialogue in a recent movie to be extremely applicable to Andy Sullivan:
Dirka dirka dirka.
Dirka dirka!
Di-r-ka.
Dirka dirka dirka?
Dirka.
…
Dirka dirka!
TF6S
I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer – I said I viewed Sully AS I viewed Q4P.
I love San Francisco and my youngest attends SFSU…but I gotta tell you, so many of the residents live in a whole ‘nother universe!
Jaysus jumping Christ on a fucking pogostick, FirstTimer, his lover (and he, if he’s smart) need to make out Living Wills and such legal documents that will specify who gets to visit whom, when to “allow death,” and etc. Every damn citizen of this country who has any common sense at all should do that. DUH.
Also, Sullivan can leave anything he wants to anyone he wants in his will. All he needs is a smart lawyer and the right phrasing–again, like anyone in this country with any damn common sense should have done already.
Fucking Christ on a Cross, buy a fucking clue.
TW: did, as in you already did make out a Living Will, didn’t you?
When the U.S. rounds up suspects willy-nilly, throws them into Abu Ghraib, and tortures them to get worthless intelligence, the locals tend to take it personally.
If that were true, there would be a lot more than 300-odd prisoners there. Saying we rounded them up at random is evidence of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Darleen,
Our city supervisors live in another dimension.
Adam
The USA has not changed the way it treats POWs.
Period.
Hmmmm.
What “moral high ground”?
In what context has this ephermal “moral high ground” ever been of any value whatsoever? Under what circumstances has anyone but a liberal been concerned with the “moral high ground”?
The rather silliest argument I’ve ever heard against torture is that if we do it then the enemy will too.
Which is frankly idiotic because America hasn’t fought against an enemy that HASN’T tortured American POWs regardless of anything America has or has not done.
And because “Islamist thugs” don’t really give a rat’s ass what liberals think.
If there’s one thing a liberal cannot abide, that’s being ignored.
FirstTimer:
For what’s it worth, you’re more than welcome to stick around–just as long as you aren’t boooooring, like A Certain Unread Blogger we know.
SlipperyPete: Seriously, Jeff was just observing how much hypocrisy is exhibited by some lefties whenever they give up arguing the issue and resort to calling you a ‘fag’–like they’re tacitly admitting it’s an insult and not the Blameless Thing in their minds they like to pretend it is.
TF6S
LOL. Then there was the Naked Bike Riders in Frisco a couple of weeks ago
Not Safe for Work Pics….and put down yer drinks, too!
Though, Sully might like some of ‘em.
For me, it was when he came back from his P-Town vacation in August 2004. Before then, he was doing his tiresome Hamlet schtick about whether or not to vote for Kerry; afterwards, there was no doubt about whom he supported.
These posts by Andy (sorry, Andrew) illustrate best Sullivan’s incoherence. In the first, he hyperventilates that “In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all.” because those states passed anti-gay marriage amendments, then in the very next post he states “We need therefore to be even more emphatic about the need for a federalist response to an issue best left to the states.” Even after almost two years, that jarring contradiction leaves me dumbfounded. But Andrew types happily on, blithely unaware of any contradiction.
Unless, of course, someone points it out to him, at which point he becomes the Wounded Martyr for Truth, fighting the Reactionary Christianists.
Y’see Ed, the utility of the vaunted “moral high ground” is that it allows us to “deplore” the common use of torture and worse by our enmies, and we then get to have the UN (well, some of the members, anyway) wailing behind us like a Greek chorus as we complain. Boo hoo.
The fact that the complaints inevitably fall on deaf ears is immaterial to this process.
SB: trouble
comprehending liberal-think
Adam,
I still fail to see the logic. So called, soft torturing has practically hurt our position in Iraq?
So the ethnic population that continues to support the people that lop off peoples heads while emasculating our soldiers dead bodies are reluctant to support our morally superior country because of waterboarding? I guess the reality then has nothing to do with the fact that the Sunni ethnic community was removed from power after engaging in mass killings, and decided to align themselves with foreign terrorists who were willing to restore the Sunnis back to power (so they wouldn’t be hunted down like the dogs they are).
Strange even as we’ve set a bad example (in your world) that the rest of Iraq seems to be embracing this democracy thing pretty well. There are a log of pragmatic reasons as to why this is, but that one of the main traits that make democracy sexy.
And what’s your source that says we’ve gained useless information from inmates at Abu Ghraib? if you think we haven’t gained any useful intelligence from interrogating prisoners, you need to start reading a few military history books. Hell, read some detective novels.
Said SP, using his sooperAWEsome mindreading powerz. Dood – you can rule the world with that gift! Or at least be in the next X-Men bomb.
I’ve discussed torture quite seriously on this site. In fact, I believe I’ve been far more serious about it than has Sullivan, he likes to pose and preen and wring his hands.
Humiliation as torture allows the person being interrogated to define the terms of interrogation and therefore renders interrogation itself toothless.
We can argue about whether or not we believe waterboarding to be torture—it plays on one’s inveterate fear of drowning, but whether or not it is torture, or simply something designed to be perceived as such, is a difficult question—but what we can’t argue about is that, say, when somebody complains that wrapping an Israeli flag around a Muslim, or splashing them with fake menstrual blood, rises to the level of torture, torture itself loses all meaning.
I’ve advocated that we be quite clear about how we define torture. I’ve likewise argued that enemy combatants aren’t entitled to Geneva Convention protections, or else—just as extending the definition of torture to ridiculous extremes weakens it as a category of treatment, extending GC protections to terrorists takes away the necessity for signing on to the treaty to begin with.
So my positions have been laid out. It is easier, I believe, to sit back and bemoan the loss of a “moral high ground” than it is to discuss how to protect a nation from a particular threat—how far we are willing to go, where the line should be drawn, etc.
Andrew finds self-righteousness more appealing. And, given that he’s not responsible for protecting a country and its citizens, it is an comfortable position to stake out.
But brave? Hardly.
You made a stupid generalization about homophobia & the left that you still haven’t even tried to defend. You can trash Sully all you want, but it won’t make your original statement any less idiotic.
What “moral high ground�
Gosh, all this time I thought America was a pretty awesome country. Leave it to a right-winger to twist himself up defending the U.S.’s actions by telling me that there is NOTHING SPECIAL about the United States!
The rather silliest argument I’ve ever heard against torture is that if we do it then the enemy will too.
I agree, that would be a silly argument. Who’s making it?
Actually, Conservitives don’t neccessicarily say that, some may. However, Christians are supposed to say that mostly because of the whole Prodigal Son, lost coin and lost sheep parable thing. “Some” do fail to seperate the actions from the person among the Christians but that “some” also happen to be wrong. News flash: Christians are people. People aren’t perfect. Christians aren’t perfect and we never claimed to be.
However, to expect Christians to be “ok” with what they consider to be offensive to our religious beliefs is not very PC or respectful, yet we still live in a country with several laws and a popular culture that fly in the face of those beliefs. Yes, we actively try to change them but how are we different than any other group based in identity politics in that aim?
So while you may not agree, and while some Christians screw up in the expression of the core beliefs of Christ, your religious intolerence is showing, SP.
How is that for “truithiness” and “speaking truth to the power?”
Thanks for reminding me that back in 2004 I gave him 50 bucks. Right before I deployed too. I offered to make reports from Afghanistan to both Sullivan and Reynolds. Sullivan didn’t even bother to respond to my first one (a no thanks to the reports, but thanks for the $50 would have been fine), however, Reynolds did. The rest was correspondent history.
So I got taken for 50 bucks so he could spend a month in the hammock. Oh well, live and learn.
Adam Villani
I do believe that it is acceptable for people to discuss the use of torture by the US. I believe it is bullshit to bring it up as some sort of gotcha counterweight every time the enemy acts like the thug he is. Which seems to be where we are at. Do you agree?
First Timer
If Andrew of the broken heart is worried about those things, why does he not just go to Mass to ensure that he and his partner have them? The truth is, and of this I only speak of Andrew, is that he lacks the conviction do actually do what he is calling for. In addition, having read some of his writing on the subject, it is clear that Andrew doesn’t really want to be married (as the institution is known today), because he doesn’t intend to be monogamous. He wants the world to change all of the things it holds as sacred or traditional in order to suit his purpose, and then he won’t even bother to take part. What do you think that says about him?
One other thing, because it’s important. The gay marriage “issue†is not as neatly divided along political lines as is claimed. This is not a political issue, although I will grant that both sides seem inclined to dishonestly want to make it one. My prediction is that the FMA will never pass, because it doesn’t have the support. In addition, gay people will eventually get the rights inherent in the institution of marriage because it is the right thing to do, but they will probably never get the word marriage as accepted at the federal level. However, if they have the rights, they can call the arrangement whatever the hell they want to, and no one can say boo about it.
Yeah, it’s just dreadful of Sullivan to point out that it’s possible to support gay rights while being a free-marketeer; that it’s possible to support a war while opposing cretinous military strategies, casual torture, and turning the President into a flat-out dictator; and that there are more homophobes on the Right than on the Left. What we have here, in short, is further proof that “protein wisdom” is the fancy term for “meathead”.
Yea, team! Rah!
Why doesn’t he get married, then? Massachusetts gays have sacrificed domestic partner benefits because of the demand for gay marriage. The gay marriage crew won.
It’s now legal in Mass, Andy lives in Mass, so why doesn’t he get married?
WHY IS HE LIVING IN SIN??? Where is the committment?
You go Bruce!
Don’t let the those pesky facts get in the way!
Great! We got the green light!
Cordially…
Uh, first of all, my name isn’t “Sully”. It’s Andrew, followed by Sullivan, with Baron von Rothschild in the middle when you want to be formal. I’ve endured two decades of being called Andy, Randy, Candy, Sull, Suliman, Andru, A-dog, The Sullster, Honey buns, and Mary. So, Mr. Goldstein (may I call you “Goldie” or “Goldberg”?)I look forward to seeing you endure the many slings and arrows of those presumptous enough to address you informally. Oh my, I’m getting the vapors just thinking about it.
I’ve seldom seen a poster establish moonbat credentials so quickly!
Kudos, Moonaw!!
There’s a two-word phrase that has described Andrew Sullivan in my mind, but if I said it the second word would get me accused of homophobia.
Well, since I voted for Bush in 2004, think torture is too serious a matter for mere posturing, and oppose same-sex marriage, that whole “accused of…” train has long since left the station, so…
Andre, quit being such a drama queen!
First off, waterboarding is torture, no matter how you slice it. The U.S. waterboards prisoners. Ergo, the U.S. tortures prisoners.
QED.
Adam, I’ve found some inside info on the Army’s diabolical use of torture on a captive audience. Keep a waste basket close by when you view this.
Of course, in the minds of some people, the fact that there have been 0 successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is proof of nothing.
These same people, I would posit, are probably secretly disappointed that there have not been any for reasons I won’t (and shouldn’t have to) enumerate.
TW: but, as in “Is that fat Englishman looking at my but?”
And get over it, dumbasses. I know it’s “butt.”
Yes, but is it possible for a leftist to describe Bush and the WOT without hyperbole? I’d guess not judging by the above. And for that matter, how is “casual torture” possible? Is that like the dreaded pointy cushion employed by the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python’s Flying Circus!
I say give Bruce the comfy chair.
THE COMFY CHAIR?!?!
isn’t it odd that in today’s blogosphere, a link from Sullivan’s website brings in a similar catch as a link (or mere rallying cry of “FOR GREAT JUSTICE”) from Greenwald or Atrios?
Not to say, ya know, Sullie (is it still ok to call him that?) is only a conservative by self-assertion.
Me, I stopped making Sullivan a regular visit on my daily blog-tour during the Katrina coverage. Sullivan’s bemoaning of all our failings and evil and crony-ism and incompetence and yada-yada just wore me out. During the entire ordeal, he seemed to be without a single insightful question or reasonable perspective…and it just made me sea-sick.
“Gosh, all this time I thought America was a pretty awesome country.”
Wonderful logic and thinking going on here. No emotional blather what’s so ever. I label this post as a poster-child for today’s reasoned leftism.
First, you have presented no evidence or argument for why waterboarding is torture. Surely you recognize there are definitional issues here. According to the definition of torture passed by the Congress, and signed by President Clinton, waterboarding is not torture.
It is entirely reasonable to disagree with that law/treaty on legal or moral grounds. But like Andy, you are emoting, not reasoning.
Second, waterboarding was on a draft list of interrogation techniques reviewed for possible approval, and was never authorized as by the Pentagon as an approved interrogation technique, as you would know if you were familiar with the relevant original documents. In particular, this memo makes it abundantly clear that Rumsfeld specifically ruled out the use of waterboarding, despite the fact that it would not meet the legal definition of torture.
I do believe that it is acceptable for people to discuss the use of torture by the US. I believe it is bullshit to bring it up as some sort of gotcha counterweight every time the enemy acts like the thug he is. Which seems to be where we are at. Do you agree?
Yes. I, too, find it rather cretinous when leftists respond to another beheading with something that essentially amounts to blaming the victim. But I think Andrew has done an admirable job of reporting on developments in the various revelations of abuse and torture as they come up, not merely as a response to the Islamists’ thuggishness. And his accusations are far from unsubstantiated; just look through his archives to find many cases where he’s linked to sources.
A lot of you are trying to paint Andrew Sullivan as some whiny leftist Michael Moore-type who runs around screaming “Bush is evil! Bush is evil!,” but you’re way off base. Yes, he seems pretty unrelentless in covering his two favorite issues of prisoner treatment and gay marriage, but he outlines his case logically, backed by facts.
Shucks, Docob, it’s the PRESIDENT (and his legal advisors) who have publicly proclaimed that in wartime the President has the right to either reinterpret or override absolutely any law the way he pleases. (By the way, you misspelled my name.)
I’ve also just caught Goldstein’s mindboggling question as to whether or not waterboarding is real “torture “ (the Inquisition thought otherwise, as did the US when it prosecuted Japanese after WW II for “torturing” captured Americans that way—but then, what’s a little near-drowning between friends?), and his even more mindboggling accusation that Sullivan spends most of his time criticizing “soft torture” (he spends most of his time criticizing somewhat harder types, of the sort that have already killed 300 prisoners in our custody).
Great, you’ll have no trouble producing a link to such a public proclamation….
/yep, it’s a moonbat
“Unitary Executive” theory, Pablo? Remember? To find several thousand links on the subject, just try Google.
Now it’s being alleged that we tortured 300 prisoners to death?
Where, when, and how?
Or is this like those secret European and Asian prisons that have yet to actually materialize in this time-space continuum?
Damn, it was too subtle after all.
I knew I should have used a hyphen.
And his accusations are far from unsubstantiated; just look through his archives to find many cases where he’s linked to sources.
Adam, it’s typically not his accusations that I have a problem with. It’s his characterizations. There’s a universe of respectable viewpoints about the propriety of certain forms of prisoner treatment beyond Sullivan’s own, and yet Sullivan insists on treating anyone with less delicate sensibilities than his as an unqualified reprobate who is sullying (pardon the pun) the honor and national dignity of the United States.
Well, fuck him. I respect his right to believe that mere heavy breathing in the vicinity of a Guantanamo detainee constitutes shameful abuse, but I do not accept his hectoring, and I point and laugh at his moral preening.
Yes, he seems pretty unrelentless in covering his two favorite issues of prisoner treatment and gay marriage, but he outlines his case logically, backed by facts.
I would dispute this. I doubt very much that logic and Andrew Sullivan have ever been formally introduced.