Tuesday, July 31, 2007
|
|
Andrew Then and Now
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
5:51 PM
|
Andrew Sullivan this morning:
“There's been no 'smearing' of David Petraeus, so far as I can see."
Andrew Sullivan on July 18:
“Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney's. Expect spin, not truth, in September.”
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
The left needs to be very careful in how they deal with Petraeus. He's a smart, articulate guy with a lot of gravitas. Accusing him of being a right-wing propagandist is not just irresponsible, it's politically foolish.
It's a shame. A lot of the time I think Sullivan is right on. In this particular case he's gone off the rails. |
|
"The difference between Sullivan and Hugh is if the political parties were reversed on this war (let's assume that Gore won in 2000 and followed his earlier position on Iraq), I suspect that Sullivan might take the same position he is now."
Sure. Of course, some suspect that if Bush had come out in favor of gay marriage Andrew would still be in favor of the war... |
|
...he says it. He suffers from something that allows him to operate without any standards. We see his craziness and inconsistencies, but he doesn't.
See Evan Sayet's phenomenal explanation of liberals, or as Evan calls them, "Modern Liberals."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
It's a talk at Heritage and it's about 40 minutes long. Watch the Q&A at the end too.
|
|
Is there anyone out there who still listens to what Andrew has to say . . . about anything?
I'll grant you the man is a word-smith, but even a word-smith needs to have something worthwhile to say. Sometime. |
|
"Sure. Of course, some suspect that if Bush had come out in favor of gay marriage Andrew would still be in favor of the war..."
The implication being that Sullivan's life is ruled entirely by his sexual orientation? To the degree that he would change his opinion on an issue as important as the Iraq War because of it?
Exactly who is it that believes this? This opinion is news to me. Do you believe it? Or, to give you an out, are you just talking trash to try to shame Joe out of his assertion that Hugh is a partisan hack who would hate anything a Democrat did, even if it's something he supports now?
I don't know. I think it's very insulting. It's also absolutely typical of the anti-gay wing in this country to assume that everything in gay peoples' lives revolve around their homoseuxality. |
|
Just to clarify something: just because you disagree with what Andrew says, that doesn't make his contribution worthless.
It's just maddening the way that people on both the right and the left derisively dismiss anything that comes out of the other side's mouth just BECAUSE it comes out of the other side's mouth.
Intellectual debate in this country has been destroyed by partisan hackery. |
|
So tell us outright: do you or do you not believe that Andrew Sullivan changed his opinion on the Iraq War because of Bush's stance on gay marriage?
And incidentally, it's hard to blame him for taking it personally. He is, after all, a gay man. |
|
|
he's not obliged to admit his July 18 comments were a smear. |
|
|
|
|
...he had his trouseau all picked out and he looks so lovely in white..... |
|
You completely contraict yourself. You say no, he didn't jump sides on the war because of gay marriage, and then you say no more than a few sentences later that he "went from believing the war was the right decision but mismanaged to believing the war was conjured up by evil men with evil purposes because he got upset with the Bush administration over gay marriage as well as a plethora of other issues". What other issues would those be?
You're right that the personal animus between Andrew and Hugh and Dean has gotten out of control - on all sides. Hugh and Dean take every opportunity to personally snipe at Andrew, and Andrew does the same. This has nothing to do with his being homosexual. It has everything to do with the schism within conservatism. The fact that Hugh and Dean would no doubt respond by saying that Andrew Sullivan isn't really a conservative just proves my point.
And by the way, just because you're not a respected commentator, that doesn't give you free reign to let your personal prejudices interfere with your capability to reason. |
|
|
Your comment skirts the bounds of polite discourse and criticism. At least you said "trousseau" instead of "dress". |
|
Warren Buffett said that it takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to destroy it. Sullivan doesn't need five minutes.
Perhaps he can begin to rehab his rep by helping O.J. in the search for Nicole's killer. |
|
|
If Barnett calls Sullivan's comments a "smear" because Sullivan suggested that Petraeus is on Cheney's side, he must assume that association with Cheney is a noxious thing. Freudian slip? |
|
|
But it is really a no brainer. Why would you invite someone who will only bring copies of "A Mormon in the White House" as a gift. |
|
|
Only if it involves quail hunting. |
|
...and always has been...
It's probably a defense mechanism for being abused as a child... |
|
|
Andrew Sullivan is a principled individual. He simply follows his principles. His principles like his feet are firmly planted on a political weather vane. |
|
In many cases everything does revolve around their sexual orientation. Most homosexuals I've met have made everything about the fact that they're gay, or about what happens in their bedroom. This is a bit off topic though.
Back on topic; I think it's a pretty cheap shot to say that Hugh would change his stance on the GWOT just because a Democrat was in office. I'd like to see you provide one shred of evidence that this is so. Of course, you can't. You just thought you'd take a cheap shot.
Jim C |
|
You write: "So tell us outright: do you or do you not believe that Andrew Sullivan changed his opinion on the Iraq War because of Bush's stance on gay marriage?"
Yes. I believe that when Bush made a concerted push for the FMA, Sullivan surrendered to his inner hysterical narcissist and ceased to be a rational or honest political commentator.
|
|
What? So what your saying is you don't really have any principles and thus you are principled -- as is AS?
What use are principles if whenever they are inconvenient we chose not to follow them?
Why even have principles then? |
|
BrandonHarris, you also write: "Just to clarify something: just because you disagree with what Andrew says, that doesn't make his contribution worthless."
No. Sullivan's demonstrable ignorance about virtually everything outside the confines of his own underwear, and his hysterical narcissism, make his contribution worthless.
|
|
You clearly don't understand Hugh. His position on the war on terrorism doesn't vary based on whose at the helm.
HH's really very straight forward on this topic. He simple doesn't want to be killed by the Islamic terrorists that are substantially present in Iraq.
It's that little thing called "self-preservation."
It's not a political thing it's a common sense thing. |
|
I thought you were criticizing me for suggesting Dean would give chinzy gifts as a wedding present.
I cannot give you an example from Hugh on the Iraq War, but you can look at Hugh's position on topics to see he is very partisan and basically goes with what is best for the GOP (as he sees it).
But to be fair to Hugh, I think he would be consitantly pro troops (whether a Dem or Republican was in charge) and so to that extent I take my comment back. And I also do not think Andrew Sullivan's position is caused by gay politics at all. I also believe Sullivan cares just as much as Hugh does regarding our troops' well being in Iraq. |
|
Wow. Okay, we're really on different pages. Your implication that believing that the death of Pat Tillman wasn't a simple friendly fire incident is just crazy talk tells me a lot.
Three close-range shots to the head from an M-16 after he shouted, "Hold your fire, I'm Pat Tillman."
Friendly fire my ear. I'd use dfferent language, but I know how Hugh feels about that. |
|
If that is the case, why didn't Hugh call for more troops when Rummy was in charge. Show me where Hugh criticized President Bush or his administration for not being agressive enough in Iraq?
We had 3.5 years of Plan Rummy. It did not work. All Hugh did during that interim is encourage people to vote for the GOP, criticize John McCain, and support Harriet Miers. |
|
|
No wonder why the Democrat Partisans love him... |
|
Andrew Sullivan is way too smart for the rank-and-file Republican Bush supporters.
Don't bother trying to understand him. It's WAY over your collective heads. |
|
|
Actually, it's Brian Harris. As to the bit about Sullivan, you may see my above reponse to Jim. Gay people's lives are not all about their sexuality. To say otherwise is bigoted. That's all there is to it. |
|
Plan Rummy toppled the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and quickly removed Saddam from power in Iraq.
Did you forget about his many impressive successes?
It is stunning to see such a vapid offering, regarding the context of the difficulty involved with creating a new Free Ally for the GWOT, in the heart of the Arab Region.
This isn't shopping for shoes online, this could be one of the most challenging endeavors the USA has attempted since WW2.
Vietnam was clearly poorly managed, but Iraq has shown great potential, progress, tactical and strategic achievement in every sense.
Iran and Syria now separated. Both are now feeling the pinch. Israelis no longer carry gas masks for fear of Saddam's threat.
As far as your reference to 'aggressive' action, what President do you know has over a hundred thousand US Troops in the ME right now?
That is aggressive...
You fail to remember, the US gave the Iraqis their sovereignty, unlike the bogus claims of Democrat Partisans, the US is not alone in Iraq.
Not only did we have to work with the FREE ELECTED Iraqi Government, we have Poland, Great Britain, Australia, etc., etc., who all held varied strategies for accomplishing this Mission.
To say 3.5 years of Rummy 'did not work' is completely silly.
Has the US been attacked on it's soil since 9-11?
Just ask the FREE Government growing in Afghanistan, how successful Sec. Rumsfeld actually was...
Memories seem awfully short, and an objective reason used to employ historical context is nonexistent.
How many times did Grant stumble before he ultimately became victorious?
It is embarrassing to read...
War is not ice skating.
Harriet Miers?
LOL
So you are thankful, the President wisely listened to the Conservative Base?
By the way, people should vote for the GOP, if they want serious efforts in National Security, to avoid mindless taxation, to prevent appeasing threats, etc.
Mr. Hewitt is spot on...
If someone was foolish enough to not vote, they empowered the likes of Pelosi visiting Syria, Murtha exploiting earmarks, Schumer slandering Judicial Nominees, Leahy smearing an AG, Al Gore and Valerie Plame invited before Congress, massive taxation and spending increase attempts, etc., etc.
The Democrat Majority is a disaster.
They prove to be mindless juveniles, desperately obsessing about their power, ignoring serious issues and threats.
The Democrat Party will go down in history, just as they did in the Cold War, as the Party that encouraged-enabled the Enemies and Threats faced by Our Free Democracy.
A very ugly, sad, pathetic record indeed. |
|
What world do you live in? I've been around homosexuals quite a bit, and yes, their whole identity tends to be defined their sexuality. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Sullivan almost definitely turned against President Bush for the Defense of Marriage act. To suggest otherwise is plain silly.
I read Andrew Sullivan quite a lot until he went off the deep end over gay marriage. Like a lot of abortion rights activists, he's a single issue voter and his issue is gay marriage.
And here, let me help you:
"Blake, please cite and link." or "Blake, you're just a knuckle dragging right winger who is anti-gay."
One, no, I'm not going to cite, go browse through Andrew Sullivan . com and check his archives leading up to the 2004 election. You'll find the trend there.
As for the second, interesting that you conflate observation with bigotry. |
|
There are many homosexuals whose identities are defined by their sexuality, sure, just as there are many heterosexuals who have the same tendency. There were more of them in the seventies and eighties than there are now, but yes, there are some.
But to say with no qualifiers, as you just did, that ALL of them or even most are that way demonstrates not just a lack of understanding, but a lack of interest in understanding them.
By the way, I'm sure you walk upright, Blake. And I know plenty of right-wingers who can separate stereotypes from reality when it comes to homosexuality. You just aren't one of them. |
|
Sullivan is mentally ill. We all know that. His "condition" is widely known.
What else do you expect from a buggerer? |
|
You have a poor grasp of recent history. Tenent organized the Afghan effort to overthrow the Taliban, not Rumsfeld. The Pentagon did not even have a plan in place for Afghanistan after 9/11. The CIA did.
I also supported the Iraq war. Still do. I want victory as much as you do. But the occupation was a CF, and that is mostly due to Rummy.
Syria and Iran have benefitted from the chaos.
Keep cheering for whatever Hugh tells you to cheer for. |
|
Does anyone pay attention to Mr. Sullivan.
It just encourages him, you know. |
|
"If Barnett calls Sullivan's comments a "smear" because Sullivan suggested that Petraeus is on Cheney's side, he must assume that association with Cheney is a noxious thing."
That's a neat rhetorical flourish, but a completely and cynically dishonest argument. |
|
|
While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies, campaign advertisement and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see our current “president” and political parties in general, support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty. |
|
|
Right, but as entertaining as the ludicrous contortions and ridiculous attempts at homosexual psychoanalysis (gay = narcisism. Where have I heard THAT one before?) I've seen on this thread. |
|
|
I find it puzzling that Andrew Sullivan is considered a serious thinker - he is not. You're wasting your time paying any attention to him. |
|
|
Andrew Sullivan is serious, alright--at least compared to many other pundits. What is increasingly unserious is that faction here in America whose policy against terrorism has become a series of Hail Mary passes. Pulling the wool over their own eyes, angrily castigating everyone EXCEPT those responsible for the blunderous Iraq policy (i.e. themselves), seemingly more loony with each passing day--next to these guys, Andrew Sullivan is serious as a heart attack. |
|
|
Excitable? Yeah, Sullivan is excitable. I often disagree with him, but to suggest he is anything other than a patriot is wrong. I disagree with Dean and Hugh (especially Hugh) on many issues, but I do not doubt their motivations. They act in good faith even when I think they are flat out wrong. Assume the same for Sullivan. |
|
Thanks for your dose of good sense.
The notion that homosexuals are defined by their sexual identity is true only in that by describing someone as a homosexual it has _become_ the issue.
Gay people just want to have lives like the rest of us. Go to work, pay taxes (well, perhaps not that part), get married, maybe have children. It is only when folk like Russell (Tuesday 8:52pm) start to talk that gay people become aggressive about their sexuality.
Yes, there are people in the big cities (SF, NY, Sydney etc) who "live the gay lifestyle," and why shouldn't they? Most grow up--as we all do--to want stable long-term relationships in an environment of tolerance and equality.
In the meantime, Russell, go bugger yourself.
|
|
You write: "As to the bit about Sullivan, you may see my above reponse to Jim. Gay people's lives are not all about their sexuality. To say otherwise is bigoted. That's all there is to it."
Fortunately I'm not arguing that gay people's lives are all about their sexuality. I don't presume to know every gay person, everywhere, or to what extent their sexuality informs their politics (if at all).
Rather, I'm arguing that Andrew Sullivan's anti-Bush monomania is traceable less to real policy differences than to Sullivan's own narcissistic sense of betrayal at Bush's embrace of the FMA. Combine that with the general this-one-goes-to-eleven overwroughtedness of Sullivan's writing, and you have a blogger who is essentially unreadable and has nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discourse.
Implying that I'm a bigot makes you look like a moron.
|
|
I used to regularly read Sullivan's blog and commentaries, but he went totally looney over the gay marriage issue and the supposed torture by humiliation at Abu Grabh and he has NEVER come back.
Chance are that at Andrew's past parties there were naked men stacked in pyramids and other degrading behavior, but I guess safe words made it all okay. Sullivan wears his sexuality on his sleeve and then
Whatever Sullivan needs to work out in his mind and life, he has projected all sorts of bad motives on people who seem to want this country to be victorious against enemies who would like to kill us for not being muslim. His lack of understanding that he is on the list of people who are to have walls pushed over on them is amazingly, willfully blind! |
|
*Bush was against gay marriage before this war and Sullivan still supported it. *
Many of us watched the meltdown and "transformation" of Andrew Sullivan and it was all about gay marriage. He's a one trick poney.
*What is this, some pervy love/hate thing?*
Are you talking about Sullivan ? I'd say thats an accurate description of him. Maybe add in "creepy" and "reactionary" |
|
Ah, you were the usual leftist, trying to be subtly vicious.
Very predictable.
Like I said, you leftists are all the same, when someone on the right makes an observation, to you, it equals bigotry.
I especially liked your line about "knowing plenty of right wingers who can separate stereotypes from reality."
Yeah, that line is right up there with "some of my best friends are....(fill in the the politically protected minority here)
You're calling what I said a stereotype. So, tell me, just where do those stereotypes come from? Hmm? Just how is that general public perception created?
I notice you didn't address what I said about Mr. Sullivan.
You focused, laser like, on an assertion, confident you could get away with name calling and be done with it.
Bad leftist, try again.
|
|
I didn't address your comment about Sullivan because it lacked substance. All you said was that he turned against Bush over FMA and I was silly to think otherwise. How can I argue against a statement that lacks any kind of evidence aside from the writer's own worldview? Basically all you said was, "I'm right and you're wrong, so there."
Uhm ... okay. Well, I'M right and YOU'RE wrong. So there. Your turn.
Where do you think the stereotype of the knuckle-dragging racist right-winger comes from? It's a stereotype, so there must be some truth in it, right? Come on now, Blake. Let's use our heads. You and I both know that that's a pretty pathetic argument.
Two last points. First, I'd like you to point out where I called you a name, aside from the one you chose for yourself when you signed up to comment.
Second, as a matter of fact, some of my best friends are conservatives. California conservatives, which may dilute their purity in your eyes, but conservatives nonetheless. I disagree with them on a lot, but we respect each other. And some of THEIR best friends are homosexuals, who they view as valuable, three-dimensional members of society - you know. PEOPLE. As opposed to the sex-crazed maniacs you seem to believe they are. |
|
|
|