115 Comments

1. jerry:

Roger:

I stopped reading Andrew’s blog about 6 months ago because I was getting tired of the gay shtick. Andrew is supporting John Kerry because his perception that his vision of the gay agenda will advance under Kerry. Andrew is on record as saying that gayness is what he is not what he does and his decision to endorse Kerry is merely a [legitimate] logical extension of that view. Everything else is merely an ex-post rationalization for his decision. John Kerry is a man or the radical left and that comes through despite the tactical flip-flops. He has a history of supporting [and $100 a head profit from] Communist regimes and insurgencies, thugs like Saddam Hussein, and he now adds the radical Islamic mullocracy in Iran to this list. Andrew is creating a fictional Kerry in imagination. It is a man who will act as a puppet on a his string. It is reflection of Sullivanís own immaturity.

And a word of the wise to Andrew: Kerry probably hates gays more then any Christian fundamentalist.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:19 am 2. R C Dean:

Lemme get this straight.

Sullivan thinks that we should be tough in the war on terror. He then says that we should not vote for the guy who is authentically tough in that war, but rather for the guy that he thinks may be forced, by events, to go against his natural inclination.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I ever read his blog. Thank goodness I never gave him any money.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:23 am 3. chuck:

Reminds me of the sixties argument that a fascist government would advance the revolution because, well, people would feel revolted. Hah, hah.

The easiest way to vote for the strong prosecution of the WOT is to vote for Bush. Andrew is too clever by half.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:25 am 4. PJ:

Well said, Roger. It’s been 18 months since the Iraq war commenced. By any standard of warfare, it is not a quagmire! Afghanistan is doing well, too, in spite of the lack of support from the freedom loving, non-cowboy, world community.

If Kerry is elected, we will have LBJ or Nixon all over again: no core beliefs, just peace with “honor” (or as the French say, surrender) while the enemy bombs the crap out of us as we run. Sullivan has completely lost it.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:36 am 5. Sandy P:

He’s trying to convince himself.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:42 am 6. Fausta:

Thank you for the link to the Podhoretz article, which I had read but didn’t book mark.

I used to find Sullivan interesting even when I disagreed with some of his views but he’s become boring and irrelevant. Hitchens, on the other hand, is always in fine form.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:46 am 7. Rick Ballard:

Sullivan’s current themes can be safely filed under “ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe them”. His descent to this level of sophistry is remakable only in contrast to the clarity with which an avowed Marxist, Christopher Hitchens, embraces the military actions currently being undertaken. One might hope that a day will dawn when Sullivan will realize that he has become a parody of a single issue proponent but it is becoming ever more clear that it is the merest glimmer of a hope.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:49 am 8. Lola:

It sounds like Sullivan is trying to have it both ways and eat his cake as well. Instead, this sends a mixed message – cross your fingers and hope for the best knowing what these terrorists are capable of.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:55 am 9. David:

Dear Roger,

I will be blunt. I like Scifi and Fantasy and British Mystery. I suspect that I would not read your novels on the whole. However you are such a resource that I am asking my kids for “Directors Cut” for my birthday. And I will read it.

Thanks

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:20 am 10. Mike:

“One reason to vote for Kerry this time is that, whatever his record, he will, as president, be forced by reality and by public opinion to be tough in this war [thus forcing the Democratic Party to own the WoT]. He has no other option.”

I floated this same theory in a thread here last week. Part of my rationale was also based on the belief that Kerry smugly realizes the MSM will give him favourable press and every benefit of the doubt when he resorts to military force.

I’m still not convinced that Sullivan isn’t right, in spite of some very good arguments to the contrary here last week.

However, as I said here last week, we really don’t need to speculate whether Kerry will or won’t be effective as a President leading the war on terror. It’s irrelevant, because legitimate questions concerning Kerry’s character should be more than enough to turn the electorate away from him. This campaign has been one long marathon of Kerry running away from himself.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:20 am 11. nopundit:

Roger,

I am glad you read Andrew Sullivan so I don’t have to.

Andrew’s logic is so broken I am (almost) at a loss for words. The way to reform the Democratic party is to crush them, not to give them power. The fever swamp needs to be drained. Only then can saner minds prevail.

Stephen Green makes an excellent point in his post on straight (Republican) party voting here:

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006909.php

He has several followup posts in which he emphasizes that he is most assuredly NOT anti-Democrat, just anti-Power-At-Any-Price. He (and several of his commenters, and me) will be voting straight Republican tickets this November, for one reason: to kill this out of control machine known as the Democratic party. Stephen, like myself and many, many others, rue the fact that we feel we have to vote this way.

Personally, I like to vote for the most capable candidate, regardless of party affiliation. The Democrats are driving thousands and thousands of voters away from them because they cannot marginalize the Michael Moore/Bush=Hitler/DemocraticUnderground crowd. In fact, it might be said that they can, but they are choosing not to (a far worse situation).

Roger, thank you for your efforts here. Blogs like yours become great because of the minds behind them.

Kenneth Greenlee

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:25 am 12. Emerald Elixir:

Christopher Hitchens went through Sullivan’s mental exercise quite a while back. Credit Hitchens to be bright enough to observe that Kerry isn’t the man Sullivan imagines Kerry to be.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:25 am 13. rod:

What Sullivan forgets is that if Kerry gets into the oval office–i make it about 55-45 that he doesn’t, FWIW–he will owe big time to the structural left.

Andrew also forgets that many Dems have grave concerns about Kerry over his occasional lapses into centrist positions. In short, the people who will get his ass into the big seat aren’t going to hammer him over the war–they will demand he end it ASAP. And he will very, very carefully have to consider everything they say on the matter.

Fox News? for christ’s sake.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:30 am 14. insatty:

Jerry took words right out of my mouth. I was a devoted Sullivan postee because of his principled support of the GWOT. Then Bush came out in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage. On a dime, Sullivan became a Bush-Basher par excellence, in league with Micah Marshall and Kos. Sullivan is now a classic one-issue liberal, who ignores the good news in Iraq. His new-found Bush hating has made him a popular regular on Chris Matthews, but unpopular with those like me that want to see the islamofascists soundly defeated.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:30 am 15. gk:

Mr.Sullivan is almost like reading Josh Marshall these days. Snarking at Bush for any or all perceived misteps. I have ceased reading him as suspect the rumor is true he will totally bag on his blog after the election. Yet another David Brock defection. Sad, really.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:35 am 16. jerry:

Mike:

If you really believe that Kerry would be forced to do the right thing you are making the same fatal mistake that plagues the Intelligence Community on a daily basis. You are saying that Kerry must follow the Bush policies because it is both logic and correct policy to do so. You are mirror imaging. There is nothing in Kerry’s past behavior that suggests he would make the same choices as Bush did. He has never supported the extension or defense of representative government or free market economies. His elitist perspective on representative governement and economic organization shapes his views on Radical Islam. All indicators point to him choosing a different and more dangerous path the current administration. His campaign narrative is “its all about socialism, stupid.” The logical implication of his worldview is Radical Islam is a check on US influence in the world.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:37 am 17. Ursus:

If Kerry wins, he will be enslaved by the far left, who will correctly feel that they got him elected while holding their noses (they wanted Dean and ‘voted strategically’, payback time is coming). There are already press reports saying that the left is not going to give Kerry a honeymoon, but instead is planning to attack the DLC and other center-left units as soon as the election is over, regardless of whether they win or lose. Kerry won’t be able to play moderate in that environment considering all of his promises.

Besides which, Kerry is a classical appeasenik pacifist: In the 1970s he fought to contain US power against Soviet and Chinese threats in SE Asia, in the 1980s he fought to contain US power against threats ina S America, in the 1990s he fought to contain US power against threats from the Middle East, etc… When he talks tough today, the lefties hope that he’s lying, and that hope is part of an implicit bargain for supporting Kerry: “look at his record, he’ll pull the troops out and apologize to Hussein”. And they’ll make sure he does it with massive amounts of political pressure, too.

Sullivan doesn’t see this. Why? Because he has let his desire to prance down the aisle in a frilly pink dress cloud the rest of his thinking.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:44 am 18. OldManRick:

I’ve commented on this before. Search for “OldManRick” at http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000436.html.

But, it bears repeating. Wishful thinking does not make it so. Sullivan ignores everything Kerry has done and said to make this argument.

Kerry wants the UN to have a greater role. This vision is unencumbered by reality of the UN whether it is its actions in Rwanda or the Oil-for-food scandal. Kerry will get greater European (and French) involvement. This vision is unencumbered by the reality of French involvement in the Ivory Coast or the corruption that is French government. Kerry will enter bilateral talks with North Korea and all will go well. This vision is unencumbered by the reality of the last set of bilateral talks. Kerry will deal with terrorism as as a law enforcement issue with more first reponders and better enforcement. This vision is unencumbered by the failure of law enforcement to prevent crimes. Kerry will manage Iraq better because he says the Bush administration is incompetent. This vision is unencumbered by the fact that Kerry has not offered any substantial alternatives.

What will he do when these “plans” fail? He has implied that he would install a more pragmatic? system than democracy, i.e. our dictator. How will this ease the resentments in the mid east? Sullivan’s vision of Kerry as a strong leader in the war on terror totally forgets Kerry’s track record of working with dictators, weakening the CIA and national defense, disengagement or isolationism, and vacillation. When push comes to shove, Kerry will go back to Kerry’s basics. After all, he can get his name in the history books by being president and still kick the real problems down the road another eight years.

Why would Kerry change? He will get at the most luke warm support form the right and at the least hostility from the left. Remember LBJ did not seek re-election after a close win in the NH primaries over McGovern. Would Kerry not understand that lesson?

Rick Ballard is right. “ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe them”. Can we say now the Sullivan has officially jumped the shark? Unlike R C Dean, I did give Sully money during one of his “pledge drives”. Now, as my penance, I support any anti-sullivan blogs whenever Sully tries to pick a fight with one of them.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:44 am 19. Sandy P:

I’m going to say it.

With whose army?

Over 2/3 of the VOLUNTEER army knows what he is and what the MSM is doing.

Why should they re-up?

And where’s he going to get the people for the 2 additional divisions and special ops?

Shows he knows nothing about special ops.

Rantburg is a wealth of info, people who were actually in special ops – Clayton – talk about it.

Pie in the sky.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:48 am 20. Sandy P:

I’m going to say it.

With whose army?

Over 2/3 of the VOLUNTEER army knows what he is and what the MSM is doing.

Why should they re-up?

And where’s he going to get the people for the 2 additional divisions and special ops?

Shows he knows nothing about special ops.

Rantburg is a wealth of info, people who were actually in special ops – Clayton – talk about it.

Pie in the sky.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:48 am 21. jedrury:

Andrew Sullivan lost my daily clicks in

the past 4 months as he allowed his anger

at the president’s support on the gay marriage amendment to highly influence his previous support of the president’s war efforts. He remains a talented wordsmith but his shift against the president on most matters appears spiteful.

As an added comment, his website is less approachable and far less user friendly than Roger’s. Posting is difficult and while there may once have been a lot of eyeballs, and maybe now at present, he handpicks the commentary for posting. This may arise from his English sense of overweaning confidence.

He took the month of August off, probably summering in P’Town and I am sure lost readership. So, I don’t read him much anymore.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:49 am 22. Peter G.:

Sullivan and Hitchens were on Russert’s show a few weeks ago. About halfway through Sullivan said, “Kerry’s unfit to be president.” Hitchens replied, “You finally managed to say so.”

In spite of this Sullivan didn’t rule out voting for him, while Hitchens made it clear that he supports Bush in this election (neither is a citizen yet, so this is strictly verbal support).

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:52 am 23. Sally-O:

I wonder if Andrew would agree that somebody with multiple convictions for drunk driving should be given a job as a school bus driver. After all, the burden of responsibility–the lives of all those kiddies in their hands–might reform them.

But I wonder if this has occured to Andrew–perhaps reform of the Democratic party might also take place if their irresponsible actions and rhetoric when it comes to security were punished instead of rewarded?

Only the silliest kind of partisan blindness (I remember the days when I thought Sullivan was better than that) could lead one to take the position that taking irresponsible stands is actually grounds for our giving someone increased responsibility. Right down the rabbit hole.

O.J. for Police Commissioner anyone?

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:13 am 24. Terrye:

Once upon a time I read Andrew Sullivan, no more.

Like Roger I don’t think a war can be prosecuted without screwups, mistakes, and missed oppurtunities. I am a realist and I think it will take a generation to really change things in Iraq. I am amazed at what has been accomplished thus far.

Sullivan is pissed because of Bush’s stance on gay marriage. I don’t really agree with Bush here either, but at least we know where Bush stands. Kerry is an oppurtunist who has allowed unprincipled and defeatist elements to take control of my [former] party.

To say that Kerry will have to pursue the WoT because of Fox news is just plain stupid. What are they going to do, call him a Democrat?

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:14 am 25. lindenen:

This whole thing begs the question: Is Andrew delusional or stupid? From the minute gay marriage emerged as a topic, I knew that Bush would have to take an anti-gay marriage, far right position. The minute I knew about the amendment I knew he’d support it. Sullivan had to know this as well or he’s incredibly stupid. He was looking for an excuse to bail on Bush imo.

It seems that he finally contracted Bush Derangement Syndrome because none of his behavior is logical.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:14 am 26. Lonewacko:

He then says that we should not vote for the guy who is authentically tough in that war

There are different ways to be tough, and there are different ways to prosecute a war. It certainly looks like Bush is “tough in that war.” After all, he’s made a lot of things blow up real good. However, perhaps there are other, better ways to actually win the war. The war is one of ideology; bombing things will only go so far. What exactly is being done to counter anti-American ideology or to undercut religious leaders who say terrorism is OK?

As for the mistakes in the Iraq invasion, consider the al Tuwaitha nuclear facility and the Iraqi spy headquarters.

In both cases, we knew exactly where they were and what they were used for. In fact, IAEA inspectors were at al Tuwaitha just before the invasion.

And, in both cases they held things vitally important.

Yet, we allowed 1/5 of the nuclear waste and who knows how much equipment to disappear from al Tuwaitha, and we let the spy files scatter to the winds.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:17 am 27. jerry:

lonewacko:

What would you do to undercut religious extremists? Or more properly what would Kerry do? Apparently help them get nuclear weapons if Iran is any indications. Engage in dialogue with them as if they could be bought off with some monetary promises. I want to know those better ways to win a war against Islamic Radicalism. Kerry thinks the root causes of this war are poverty, injustice and our failure to implement a radiant socialist future. Is this your position too? If not, what do you propose doing that we are not already doing?

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:28 am 28. Karl:

To be fair to Andrew Sullivan, I don’t think he has changed his stated positions recently. However, ever since W came out for the Federal Marriage Amendment, he has become hyper-critical of the Administration (generally from the Right). Sadly, he has increasingly slipped into sloppiness, ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs as well.

Here’s an example of what Sullivan blogged today:

“And the Mary Cheney thing is a brilliant maneuver by the Republicans. Rove knows that most people do find mentioning someone’s daughter’s lesbianism to be distasteful and gratuitous. So he can work it to great effect, exploiting homophobia while claiming to be defending gays. Again: masterful jujitsu. I tip my hat to the guy. Poisonous, but effective.”

If Sullivan has evidence that Karl Rove has some sort of mind-control ray that caused Kerry to make Mary Cheney the focus of a debate answer, I would like to hear about it. It simply does not occur to Sullivan that no parent wants their offspring’s sexuality gratutitously dragged into a political debate. It’s gratutitous (i.e., unnecessary and unwarranted) and classless regardless of your attitude toward homosexuality. I would think that someone who favors gay marriage and gay adoption would at least try to understand the dynamic of being a parent.

Perhaps more startling is that it does not occur to Sullivan that Mary Cheney may not want her sexuality gratutitously dragged into a political debate. Nor does it occur to him that Mary’s low-profile role in her father’s political activity (which in the past has been one of personal support and helping coordinate his security) may be as much a reflection of her choice as it is that of the Cheneys or the Bushes. It’s an attitude that strikes me as quite demeaning and dehumanizing to Mary Cheney. As is KE-04’s attempt to use her as a political prop.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:40 am 29. Terrye:

lonewacko:

I will not vote for Kerry, he is not to be trusted.

First Bush 1 gets together a coalition with UN approval including the French and Kerry objects to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.

He then complains that Bush followed the letter of the resolution and did not go ahead and take out the dictator instead of allowing him to remain in power.

He then supports the Iraqi Liberation Act and calls for unilateral action in Iraq if there is no way to get a coalition together to go after Iraq.

He then supports Bush going to war and subsequently refuses to vote for the bill to fund it.

He is contrary. He only reacts. He is not proactive or visionary and he has a vested interest in failure. Give him the choice: stay firm and succeed or retreat and leave your allies to die and he chooses the latter.

You can pick out things all day that should have been done differently, but there is no reason to believe it would have been any better with Kerry running things. The incident you are talking about has to do with actions in the field. Things like that happen when a Democrat is president as well.

At least they did not allow a huge environmental disaster to come about by giving Saddam’s people an oppurtunity to set all the oil wells on fire.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:49 am 30. Mike:

Jerry:

“You are saying that Kerry must follow the Bush policies because it is both logic and correct policy to do so. You are mirror imaging.”

No, I’m not mirror imaging, but I am definitely saying that I suspect Kerry believes exactly what you have said, that other than some trivial changes to the Bush approach, it is both logical and correct to continue the Bush adminstration policies, both in Iraq and in the broader War on Terror. In general terms, I see it as being that straight forward and stark, that in private, Kerry realizes there is no other option.

What we’re hearing from Kerry on the WOT is a campaign strategy based on two assumptions. First, his handlers realize there is nothing he can’t say, no truth he can’t distort, no self-contradiction he can’t make, that will sway a single vote away from his ABB radical core. Secondly, he has seen firsthand, early in the campaign, that his distortions and contradictions, particularly on Iraq, are being suppressed by the MSM. Kerry has now decided, late in the game, to move to the Dean side of the ledger on Iraq, because he feels that’s where the majority of the undecideds’ are. He knows he can only do this if the pro-Kerry media entities cover his back for him, and largely eliminate reference to his earlier, diametrically opposite position on Iraq. They have, and they will.

To sum all of this up, yes, Kerry’s past is an indicator of what he may do as President, but for God’s sake, don’t take WHAT HE’S SAYING DURING THE CAMPAIGN as being indicative of what he would do in Iraq. Not this guy.

Ursus:

“If Kerry wins, he will be enslaved by the far left, who will correctly feel that they got him elected while holding their noses (they wanted Dean and ‘voted strategically’, payback time is coming). There are already press reports saying that the left is not going to give Kerry a honeymoon,…….. ”

Sorry, I don’t see it. I believe a honeymoon is exactly what Kerry will get from the radical Left. Their euphoric hangover resulting from a Bush defeat will be lengthy, followed immediately by a rabid revisionist attack aimed at destroying Bush’s legacy.

All of us should know by now that it is impossible to underestimate the depth of hatred the hard Left feels for Bush. With another man presently in the Oval Office other than Bush, the Left might have held Kerry’s feet to the fire over Iraq if elected. But right now, because Bush is President, in the minds of the fanatics, Iraq is more a means to defeat Bush than it is an issue unto itself.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:50 am 31. blogaddict:

Andrew Sullivan has become a parody of his former self. Reasoning as convoluted as this would be something he formerly would have mocked; but now he is its proponant!

I wonder if his joints are stiff and sore from repeatedly turning himself into a pretzel in a vain attempt to justify his need to diss Bush and to believe that Kerry will magically become what he has never given any evidence whatsoever of being?

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:57 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):

[P]erhaps there are other, better ways to actually win the war. The war is one of ideology; bombing things will only go so far.

On the other hand, there are very few problems that won’t go away with the application of adequate amounts of high explosive.

Lone, the issue here isn’t really as open as you’re stating it, because the decision is between someone who is espousing a method known to have no obvious good results — ie, summits and diplomacy and the UN getting involved — versus one that hasn’t been thoroughly tried in a while, but that has shown pretty dramatic good results, albeit at significant cost, ie, blowing things up until people start doing what you want.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:03 pm 33. jerry:

Mike:

I am ignoring everything he says during this campaign. My expectations are based on his past behavior. I have always said that his pro-war posturing was just that. He has always been on the Dean side on this issue. His early pro-war posturing will be his cover to cut and run from Iraq, give nuclear technology to Iran and drive the ME peace process to the one state solution that results in the elimination of Jewish presence (as well as the Jews) from the region. The one thing I have learned in doing Indications and Warning is that the target of your analysis always tells you what his strategic objectives are and a good deal about how he is going achieve them

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:05 pm 34. someone:

Not just Kerry.

AS thinks Holbrooke, Sandy Burglar, and their ilk are going to implement -what-!?

Fortunately, Kerry’s pulling out the draft lie again, a sure sign he knows he’s going to lose.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:06 pm 35. Charlie (Colorado):

He is contrary. He only reacts.

This is a core point. Kerry has defined his whole approach to Iraq and the GWOT by saying “I’d do almost everything differently” — but when pressed, says he’d do the same things Bush is doing — only “better”.

If he wins, what’s he going to do? Call Bush and say “what would you do?” so he can do something else?

Without his own ideas and values, what else can he do?

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:07 pm 36. Charlie (Colorado):

David Frum isn’t my favorite columnist, even at National Review, but he makes a good point here, and coins a useful phrase: “opportunistic oppositionism”.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:24 pm 37. Darleen:

Interestingly, I was listening to Dennis Prager this morning who had a caller voting for Kerry citing just this rationale..that he believes Kerry will “more vigorously prosecute” the war.

Dennis opined that this has been Kerry’s success … he has done so well in taking NO position that people willingly believe of him whatever THEY want him to stand for.

Hello? Kerry voted AGAINST the first Gulf war… if Kerry had his way, not only would Saddam still be in power, he’d still have Kuwait, too.

Kerry really has no interest in anything that will annoy his beloved “foreign leaders.” He wants to be Prom Queen of the World and President of the US is his tiara, no more.

I truly worry for the future of my children and grandchildren under a Kerry regime..and not just because of him personally, but because of all the people and groups he brings with him.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:28 pm 38. Sun-Tzu:

The illogic of assuming that great responsibility will pressure Kerry (or anyone else) into “doing the right thing” is flabbergasting, especially in light of recent history.

Both a President and a Congress decided to garner votes by supporting a measure that, arguably, was unConstitutional. Everyone seemed to conclude that someone else would stop that runaway train, especially since it impinged on so many fundamental rights. And, of course, at the end of the day, there was always SCOTUS.

Well, that didn’t actually happen with regards to McCain-Feingold, did it? So much for depending on the weight of responsibility to affect decision-makers.

Mike: The assumption of a honeymoon from the Left, IMHO, is a weak one. Many liberals were extraordinarily disappointed in Bill Clinton, who promised them a liberal presidency, yet wound up giving them neither socialized medicine nor a more peaceful foreign policy, but did give them welfare reform and NAFTA. They also remember that Nixon’s “secret plan” took eight years to actually end the war.

While these people hate Bush, they are also very, very wary that Kerry will wind up being a moderate (or worse, a DLC-type) in disguise. I would suspect that these people will insist on Kerry giving them that “old time-religion” from the get-go, including ending what, to their minds, is an illegal, unjust, criminal war. That Kerry has generally swayed with the political winds hardly inspires the confidence necessary to give him any honeymoon at all.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:35 pm 39. Terrye:

What will Kerry do?

A client of mine told me her daughter in law is voting for Kerry because he will bring the troops home and go the UN on his hands and kees and beg for forgiveness.

[Don't those Kerry people make you proud?]

Truly, a man for all seasons.

We are 18 days from the election and Kerry supporters still hold diametrically opposed opinions as to what Kerry will do.

You got to hand it to the guy and the press.

They would never let Bush get away with this kind of convuluted and oppurtunistic pandering.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:41 pm 40. Knucklehead:

JMO, but I don’t think Sullivan says this sort of claptrap because he believes it. This is targetted at a category of voters who would normally vote for the Dem candidate but may not because they support the GWOT and are, therefore, apt to vote for Bush. These voters need some talisman to rub and some prayer to whisper to themselves in order to get them to vote for Kerry. Think Dorothy clicking her heels and repeating, “There’s no place like home”. Sullivan is playing the Glinda character and telling this voting block to just close their eyes, click their heels, and repeat, “He’ll be forced to fight the war. He’ll be forced to fight the war…”

Sullivan has turned and, to him, nothing is more important that SSM – nothing. Somehow he’s convinced that defeating Bush will bring SSM to the USA. So defeating Bush is what he’s after.

BTW, can somebody ’splain why the CW seems to be that Kerry is somehow “for” SSM? I’ve heard this from several gay friends and aquaintences – they want to vote for Bush due to the GWOT but are pissed that he’s against SSM. How does voting for Kerry get them to SSM? His policy regarding SSM is almost indistinguishable from Bush’s with the exception of support for the FMA and the FMA is political theater and has no hope of ever passing – ever. In the meantime we have DOMA and, unless I’m mistaken, Kerry voted for DOMA.

Oct 15, 2004 - 12:43 pm 41. mrp:

Heads Up!

Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer has an intereting article (registertration – or you can use a login from bugmenot.com): President to try N.J. after all

Excerpt:

Bush’s unexpected detour to a state that no Republican presidential candidate has carried since 1988 will take him to Marlton, in Burlington County, on Monday.

He will speak to Republicans at the Evesham Recreation Center. Vice President Cheney appeared in nearby Medford earlier this week.

With less than three weeks left in the campaign, the White House is hoping to capitalize on polls showing Bush within striking distance in the state of his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry.

The Dems and the press, of course, tut tut with rumors of an increasing point spread. But the latest (Oct.8-14) Farleigh Dickinson U. Public Mind poll places both candidates within the margin of error in NJ.

W. and Cheney are on the prowl for Blue State votes.

In addition, I think both parties are seeing a major shift in the religious black vote towards the GOP ticket.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:14 pm 42. chuck:

Knucklehead,

Kerry is the stealth candidate. The idea is that he is *really* against the GWOT and *really* in favor of SSM and just has to pretend otherwise to get elected. Is it true? Or could it just be that these folks need the anti-Bush and Kerry gets the nod by default. Then again, perhaps Kerry really is to the right of much of his party this election cycle and they feel that if elected he will lack the conviction to oppose the party activists. Beats me. Much about the Democrats confuses me these days. I think the party itself is split and is only unified in its loathing of Bush. If Bush wins I suspect that the bodies of unidentified Democrats will be showing up in vacant lots for years to come.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:15 pm 43. Lonewacko:

What would you do to undercut religious extremists? [...distortions of Kerry's positions deleted...]

How much money has Saudi Arabia spent spreading Wahabbism around the world in the past four years?

He then supports the Iraqi Liberation Act and calls for unilateral action in Iraq if there is no way to get a coalition together to go after Iraq.

He gave the president the authority to go war. He just expected that authority to be used wisely.

He then supports Bush going to war and subsequently refuses to vote for the bill to fund it.

How much of that specific bill was basically a gift to corporations rather than money that could be used to the greatest benefit to Iraq?

On a somewhat related note, see Much of U.S. aid isn’t directly helping Iraqis, analysts say.

The incident you are talking about has to do with actions in the field.

No, those are not actions-in-the-field decisions. The decision to protect nuclear facilities and spy headquarters should have been made at or near the top, and should have been a top priority. The Marines who finally arrived at al Tuwaitha did not stop the looting because they had no orders to stop any looting. That is an egregious mistake that indicates a lack of planning.

On the other hand, there are very few problems that won’t go away with the application of adequate amounts of high explosive.

That’s cute. But, unless we’re willing to kill a few hundred million people, we’re going to have to start changing minds. Being blown up is not a downside to millions of people who have been fed a specific ideology. And, there are millions who will be exposed to that specific ideology born each year. They will not be deterred by Shock and Awe.

A client of mine told me her daughter in law is voting for Kerry because he will bring the troops home and go the UN on his hands and kees and beg for forgiveness.

Well, I guess that seals the deal then. What the daughter-in-law of an anonymous poster’s client supposedly said must, if all the laws of the universe hold, accurately indicate what Kerry would do.

(Today’s suggested reading for fellow conservatives: “Why I can’t vote for Bush.” by Robert A. George)

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:18 pm 44. thedragonflies:

Since it is actually possible that Kerry will win this election, and since I will support the U.S. efforts in this war regardless of who is president I have been trying to convince myself that the problem with Bush is incompetence and Kerry would prosecute the war more competently; that the problem is not enough allies and Kerry could go to the world as a fresh face to get more allies; that this war is being fought by the systems of intelligence, defense, justice, diplomacy, finance, et al regardless of who is the president. I was doing fine until the Sunday NYTimes mag article where Kerry said we had to get back to where we were, and we should look at the terrorists as a nuisance like drug running.

I tried, but I failed to convince myself that Kerry wouldnít kill Americans. If he gets in, I have a deep fear that hundreds of thousands of Americans are doomed.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:25 pm 45. doug b:

The premise that “reality and public opinion will force Kerry to be tough in this war” is dubious at best. There are always many plausible reasons at hand to not be tough. The picture is never that clear.

Kerry’s changing positions, his global test comment, all suggest a tentative mind. Kerry isn’t comfortable with any thought unless everyone else is in agreement.

To say that reality will force anyone to act in a certain way in an area as murky as foreign policy is nonsense.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:36 pm 46. Sandy P:

–He gave the president the authority to go war. He just expected that authority to be used wisely.–

In short, he bet our sons and daughters’ lives to call the president’s bluff.

However, when it counted W followed thru on what he said he would do. So, why did Kerry misread/misunderestimate the pres? Even Pooty-poot during the TX(?) conference said W does what he says.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:45 pm 47. Sandy P:

–He gave the president the authority to go war. He just expected that authority to be used wisely.–

In short, he bet our sons and daughters’ lives to call the president’s bluff.

However, when it counted W followed thru on what he said he would do. So, why did Kerry misread/misunderestimate the pres? Even Pooty-poot during the TX(?) conference said W does what he says.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:46 pm 48. doug b:

Sullivan should read Five Days in London, May 1940 by John Lukacs which details how close Great Britain came to seeking a peace agreement with Germany after France fell.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:46 pm 49. Sandy P:

Sorry about all the double postings. I’m having laptop problems.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:47 pm 50. Good Ole Charlie:

OK, back to topic…

Sullivan is a one-note singer these days: gay marriage.

Myself, I couldn’t care less about gay marriage. It doesn’t affect me or mine. Marriage or civil contract: you gays in the corner step outside and fight it out in the alley. Lemme know who wins, will ya? Thanks.

MEanwhile, back in civilization-as-we-know-it, we have this slight thing about death and destruction. Ours.

So how will I vote? Easy: vote for the more sensible, straight-forward presentation of a cure for death and destruction.

Kill them first, if necessary. Forget everything else, “Let God sort it out”, and get on with the job. Like a lot of dirty, nasty jobs it has to be done albeit dirty and nasty.

So elect someone that has a history of doing the necessary things…”Ourselves Alone” as Sien Fein (sp?) used to say.

Nuance will be no comfort to me if theh USA is left up the creek by psuedo-allies. Conferences are no good if the wonderful folks on the other side of the table are tin-pot dictators, accomplished mass murderers, and venial French politicians.

Smile a lot and ignore the bastards.

So some day Andrew Sullivan – minus any bucks from me – can get his whatever. I’m not interested in your sexuality, Sully. Seek aid and comfort elsewhere.

See you around campus, Andy.

Bye.

Oct 15, 2004 - 1:48 pm 51. EddieP:

“Me too” on being an ex Sullivan reader. He is still an excllent writer, but his constant whining about the FMA has completely turned me away. I took him out of my MUST READ bookmarks about the time he took his last Provincetown vacation.

Of course there have been mistakes in the GWOT. No one has ever tried anything like it before. As to there not being a plan, what was FDR’s plan to win WWII? What was his exit strategy for the European Theatre or for the Pacific? When was it formulated and at what point did it become set in concrete. Plans are only a beginning and they quickly become worthless when the first shot is fired. That is how it has always been. How you adapt to the situation is the most important. Having strategies, logistics, troop strength to accomplish your initial objectives are important. Our plan in Iraq did not include the 4thID sitting on ships in the Med, but we adapted and still took Saddam down in a couple of weeks.

In Desert Storm, Saddam’s troops surrendered, though Saddam proclaimed that to be a victory. This time, there wasn’t anybody left to surrender. They all ran away. We didn’t adequately plan for that, so we adapted. We have adapted to every thing thrown at us in Iraq and will continue to do so until the country is secure enough to run its own affairs, then we will reduce some strength, but we are unlikely to see an Iraq devoid of US troops in our lifetimes. That is also a good thing for the long haul.

Oct 15, 2004 - 2:18 pm 52. jerry:

lonewacko:

You still haven’t proposed any solutions except turning off Saudi Arabia. Tell me, how do you intend to do that? I don’t want here the conservation stick because someone else is going to by the oil. Do you propose that we invade Saudi Arabia? Please tell us what are your plans on this.

Oct 15, 2004 - 2:52 pm 53. Terrye:

lonewacko:

My name is Terrye Hugentober. My client is a patient of a health care agency I work for and I am not allowed to give out her name.

But the truth is if you have not heard paople say they think Kerry will bring the troops home then you are not listening.

I don’t trust him. I have the right to not trust him and while Democrats may be counting on the fact that they have registered more people than actually live in some towns just to vote for Kerry they need to accept the fact that life long Democrats such as myself are not.

Oct 15, 2004 - 3:01 pm 54. jerry:

Good Ole Charlie:

I think you hit Sullivan’s nail right on the head. The point is he wants you to care about his sexuality. He has many times said “Homosexuality is he is not what he does. He wants you to positively affirm his lifestyle. Inevitably this vision forces him to choose the left because they are willing to coerce those who oppose or merely tolerate his lifestyle to validate it. This is why I have taken to calling “gay rights” to Homosexual Exceptionalism.

Oct 15, 2004 - 3:06 pm 55. jerry:

Good Ole Charlie:

I think you hit Sullivan’s nail right on the head. The point is he wants you to care about his sexuality. He has many times said “Homosexuality is he is not what he does. He wants you to positively affirm his lifestyle.” Inevitably this vision forces him to choose the left because they are willing to coerce those who oppose or merely tolerate his lifestyle to validate it. This is why I have taken to calling “gay rights” Homosexual Exceptionalism instead.

Oct 15, 2004 - 3:07 pm 56. doug b:

On Roger’s point about how things are going in Iraq, I believe the commentary on the baseball playoffs provides a nice parallel. The losing teams never just lose, they’re always managed by incompetent idiots.

SI’s Peter King claimed that the Twins manager couldn’t handle a pitching staff because the Yankees won a few games by coming from behind, never mind that the Twins with a low payroll led the league in ERA.

Same thing in Iraq. If there is any setback it’s because Bush, et al are incompetent, don’t have a plan, etc.

Oct 15, 2004 - 3:22 pm 57. TmjUtah:

I lost interest in Sullivan for two reasons:

1. He had been writing about his rejection of Bush in gay periodicals for some months before he got around to rejecting him on his revenue stream generating blog.

That was the act of a public figure who lacked the honesty of his priniciples to interfere with his personal finances.

2. Then when he did begin to make the move on his blog it was framed as a revelation tied to policy mistakes other than the gay marriage issue.

The self-correcting factcheck hammer of the blogosphere caught up with him after that and I left.

Now about his case for Kerry being somehow channelled into effective action by the intertia of Bush policies…that’s specious. That contention is even more an insult to my intelligence than his pretensions that he’s anything but a one-issue voter.

I’ll tell you exactly what historical parallel we are looking at. This is the Lincoln/McClellan 1864 campaign happening all over again. We have an embattled president engaged in a life or death struggle for the nation being sniped by small men.

McClellan ran as a figurehead for Lincoln’s northern democrat political opponents. He was ‘electable’ because the media of the day painted him as a betrayed hero…ignoring his timidity and incompetence on the battlefield while blaming Lincoln for not adequately supporting him. Little Mac was a superb ogarnizer and technician but hopeless at the point of decision. He was beaten handily the first time he ever went up against the Confederates and subsequently could never bring himself to move against them without asking for more and yet more men. At the time he was relieved, he enjoyed something like a four to one superiority in manpower over Lee and Longstreet and overwhelming logistical advantage…but he wouldn’t fight. His campaign platform was for peace at any price, and was rejected. I pray we remain enough of a nation to do the same in the coming election.

Suggesting that effective leadership can come from some sort of poll driven focus group motivation is bullshit. Do you think you’ld ever see a faction of the board of a Fortune 100 company seeking to remove a CEO because they thought they could install an empty suit that would continue the success because it was happening already? Again, that’s a big fishslap at any reader’s intelligence, isn’t it?

Lincoln was widely hated right up until the last gun fell silent in 1865. His political enemies seethed until the day he died…and within twenty four hours came to realize what loss the country had suffered. I hope we don’t find ourselves in the same position they did on November 3.

Oct 15, 2004 - 3:29 pm 58. Lonewacko:

In short, he bet our sons and daughters’ lives to call the president’s bluff. However, when it counted W followed thru on what he said he would do.

Not historically accurate. Bush said he’d exhaust all other options before going to war. He did not.

You still haven’t proposed any solutions except turning off Saudi Arabia.

Well, to most people “turning off” S.A. and Pakistan would seem to be the keys to the whole matter. I mean, when OBL issues a fatwa do you think he just made it all up himself? No, he offered religious justification. Almost all other Islamic terrorists are doing it in the name of their religion and with religious justification.

Now, we can act like pinheads and think we can fight religious justification solely by blowing things up.

Or, we can be smart. We use military force when necessary. But, we also attempt to do something about that religious justification. We very strongly encourage societies like S.A. and Pakistan to change as much as possible given their societal constraints. We take other, covert actions as necessary.

For instance: When King Sunny Ade teamed up with Onyeka Onwenu to make his 1989 album, “Wait For Me,” it was a more than just a departure from Ade’s usual style of music. Behind the recording lies a troublesome tale of secret payments, decep- tion, and intrigue. The album, which urged listeners to use “family planning,” cost the United States government $350,000 — the equivalent of more than two-and-a-half million naira. Although this sum also covered the production of a short videotape, the majority of it appears to have been spent to conceal the involvement of the U.S. from the Nigerian public — and even from Ade himself.

I’m truly sorry that that doesn’t put on a nice show of fireworks and make things blow up. But, it’s things like that that are actually effective and will win the war.

But the truth is if you have not heard paople say they think Kerry will bring the troops home then you are not listening.

That’s what Bush said he said. Kerry actually said two things: if his plan is followed he might be able to start bringing people home in six months. He also said he was going to win.

Oct 15, 2004 - 4:01 pm 59. Terrye:

lonewacko:

Maybe Bush believed he had used all other means to deal with Saddam. You see that is subjective. Kerry and his comrades did not ask that Bush come back for final approval, they left that decision to him.

And those troops could not set indefinitely in that desert with summer coming on. Sooner or later Bush had to make a decision, something Kerry does not seem to be able to do.

BTW the Democrats are making sure that a lot of those troops will not get to vote in time for the election, if at all. Since they are trying to deny Nader the right to run they are holding up the ballots being sent out. It takes about four weeks for troops overseas to get the ballots and return them. If those troops are from PA or Ohio they won’t get to vote in time. On an average about 70% of them are voting for Bush whose approval rating with the soldiers is over 70%.

So this Democrat will vote for Bush to replace the vote that was denied a soldier. Too bad I am not in a swing state.

Oct 15, 2004 - 4:17 pm 60. jerry:

lonewacko:

Bush turned off Paksitan. Mussarif is still in power and has cast his lot with us. Yes, there are still radicals in Pakistan but the only way that Mussarif can get rid of them is by Stalinist measures, e.g. round them up and kill them. What more can we do in Pakistan? You still haven’t proposed anything to deal with Saudi Arabia.

Kerry says he will bring the troops home by getting the French and Germans to send troops. Well the French are on the side of the terrorists and the Germans don’t have any troops to send. Kerry knows all that. He is going to cut and run immediately. His definition of victory is the installation of another [socialist] dictator in Iraq and treating terrorism like prostitution and gambling. He has been saying the latter since the beginning of the campaign.

You are the perfect representation of the Kerry campaign. You construct a fantasy world that achieves a prefered outcome.

Oct 15, 2004 - 4:21 pm 61. Michelle:

Roger,

Andrew lost me with that post. That Max Boot quote (from a LA Times column – with no link as you note)

“Max Boot, another neoconservative, echoes the theme:

I am not at all averse to giving a Democrat a shot. In fact, a Democrat might be better able to sell skeptics abroad and at home on the need for toughness. It also would be good for the Democrats to buy into this long-term struggle, just as Republicans bought into the containment policy with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1952 election.”

is from an article explaining why Boot WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR KERRY. Sullivan totally took Boot out of context.

I haven’t agreed with Sullivan for a long while now, but I figured I should continue reading him because I once greatly respected his opinion and thought I should hear him out. Maybe he would point out something I hadn’t thought of.

But by Dowdifying this quote, I can’t trust him anymore. That’s the shame of Andrew Sullivan’s left turn.

Oct 15, 2004 - 4:31 pm 62. Ray:

Sullivan’s support for that disgusting ABC report from Vietnam is another example of his declining relevance. There are many American heroes that are available to interview, however; ABC doesn’t like what they are saying, so they have to manufacture a report in Vietnam that fits their conclusions.

Is there any difference between the Ra(th)er manufactured documents and the ABC Vietnam fables?

A boycott of ABC’s advertisers should be organized immediately.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:03 pm 63. Catherine:

I’ve been off Sullivan for quite some time, and now feel a bit foolish for having been such a fan (not to mention having sent him a hundred bucks during one of his first fundraisers). He was always, as Kaus says, “hyperexcitable,” and I fell for it.

I guess I was hyperexcitable myself. (I guess?)

I think Sullivan engaged in some romantic idealization of Bush. Not necessarily sexual-romantic idealization; I’m not trying to say Sullivan had a crush on the President.

But he idealized the President, in movie-hero terms.

He pushed the idea that George Bush was the second coming of John Kennedy (a very bad idea, that, even if it were true).

After one of Bush’s speeches to the country Sullivan said, “Man the guy looked wiped,” an emotional and romantic image. George Bush was the lone hero, weary, bloodied but not bowed, confronting a hostile world alone, etc. This Generation’s Challenge and all that claptrap.

Sullivan was living in a heightened state. A lot of us were.

I suspect he may have built it up in his mind that Bush was gay people’s secret hero, too, the strong Republican who was going to welcome Andrew into the fold at last, and smite the Christian right . . . something like that. Even today he calls Bush & Cheney “closet tolerants.”

I think he was “shocked back into reality” when Bush supported the gay rights amendment. He didn’t see it coming,

In reality, as probably everyone on this thread has pointed out at one time or other, George Bush was never going to support gay marriage.

Not only was he not going to support gay marriage, he may be quite sincere in saying he intends to protect traditional marriage. Why shouldn’t he be? Traditional marriage is under attack here; there are just no two ways about it. Either we carry on with marriage as it has existed over a number of centuries in Western civilization, or we do not.

People loathe change; the WSJ just today had a long article on farmers in Kansas refusing to rent their land so wind-energy companies can erect a wind farm.

THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT!

Well, if folks find the prospect of a Kansas wind farm so shocking they’re willing to line up in protest, how exactly do you expect them to feel about the institution of marriage?

I think Cheney is the only figure in the administration whose views on this subject are crystal clear. In reality, Dick Cheney is the strong, silent, manly Republican leading the way for gay America to join the center of life and family Sullivan imagined George Bush to be. People should be free to form any relationship they like he says; leave the official sanction of gay marriage to the states. That is Cheney’s strength showing; his position is dead-opposite to the views of people fighting to preserve traditional marriage. I know, because I get some of the pro-traditional-marriage literature.

But Sullivan can’t appreciate Cheney’s strength or his solidity or his support, because Cheney is not the focus of his idealization.

Idealization leads inevitably to contemptuous debunking of the adored figure; it’s an old story. That is where Sullivan has been for quite some time now. In the contemptuous debunking phase.

When I taught college I actively rejected any idealizations my students tried to make of me, because I knew exactly where they would lead.

My message was: Don’t love me, don’t hate me. Just like me OK, or find me annoying, whichever suits your purpose, and let’s leave it at that.

It worked out just fine.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:10 pm 64. Catherine:

TmJUtahHe had been writing about his rejection of Bush in gay periodicals for some months before he got around to rejecting him on his revenue stream generating blog.

That was the act of a public figure who lacked the honesty of his priniciples to interfere with his personal finances.

2. Then when he did begin to make the move on his blog it was framed as a revelation tied to policy mistakes other than the gay marriage issue.

The self-correcting factcheck hammer of the blogosphere caught up with him after that and I left.

I thought it was just a couple of weeks—no? (I remember when Jonah Goldberg “outed” one of the interviews in a gay publication . . . )

How did the factcheck hammer catch up with him?

Or was that Jonah?

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:12 pm 65. Charlie (Colorado):

Not historically accurate. Bush said he’d exhaust all other options before going to war. He did not.

What unexhausted option did Bush have left? I mean, realistically. You can always say “he didn’t exhaust all the options” if you’re convinced that any option, including inaction, was better — but that’s tautologous, vacuous.

What Bush had was twelve years of inaction[1], a pre-existing statement that “regime change” was US policy based on Saddam’s crimes that dated from the previous administration[2], active Iraqi support of terrorism[3], an “Oil for Food” program that was being exploited to enrich Saddam’s cronies while they purposefully and with malice starved Iraqi children to try to break the sanctions[4], and [5] at least two veto-holding Security Council members being bribed to the tune of billions of dollars.

[1] Or, at best, limited attempts to maintain some pressure, but not effective enough to save tens of thousands of Kurds, Shi’a Muslims, and the “mnarsh Arab” cultural minority.

[2] Remember that? It had been US policy since 1998. Clinton, Daschle, Carl Levin, etc, all approved … as long as it was politically expedient.

[2] Don’t even think about pulling out the usual “no connection, er operational connection, er, effective operational connection, er, no smoking gun of an effective operational connection” riff: no one who is reading the primary sources believes that any more. Saddam was, without question providing direct financial support to terrorists who were attacking both the US, and US allies; he was, equally without question, providing at least materiel and logistical support to al Qaeda via medical care and safe harbor for al Zarkawi; and he was providing succor and refuge to abu Nidal, who was personally responsible for terroristic attacks on Americans, including throwing a poor crippled Jewish man overboard to drown.

All you’ll do is prove you’re simply not interested in seriously reading on your own, and at best that you are allowing the “main stream media” to do your thinking for you.

[4][5] See the succession of articles by Claudia Rosset, not to mention dozens of others. Google Oil For Food and see what you get.

So what other realistic option did he have? What was it?

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:15 pm 66. Terrye:

Catherine:

You are absolutely correct.

I tend to agree with Cheney here myself.

But I don’t think Bush would have gone so far as to suggest an amendment if judges and mayors had not forced the issue.

Sullivan seemed to believe that Bush would be on his side on this, why I can not imagine.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:22 pm 67. Catherine:

Terrye

He is contrary. He only reacts. He is not proactive or visionary and he has a vested interest in failure. Give him the choice: stay firm and succeed or retreat and leave your allies to die and he chooses the latter

One of the arguments of THE RIGHT NATION is that the conservative movement, because of its 30 years of think-tankery, has seriously out-thought the left.

The authors quote Hillary Clinton saying the left needs more “intellectual capital.”

I had felt that myself, but had chalked it up to prejudice.

As soon as I began reading conservative literature, I kept getting the impression that the right had a lot of ideas.

The left didn’t seem to have a lot of ideas, but, instead, a lot of moral judgments.

Apparently this is one of the few critiques of the left that my husband, THE COLLEGE PROFESSOR, buys into.

I think one of the main ideas the left, including liberals, must jettison for all time is the core Kerryesque concept that “dissent is patriotic.” (”I’m proud of my protest after the war . . . “)

My husband, and apparently all left-liberals of his generation & older (& younger it seems), believe that the highest calling of a patriot is To Criticize.

Being patriotic is actually unpatriotic, because you’re signing off on things uncritically (OK, I’m starting to sound circular); you’re endorsing anything that comes down the pike. (Ditto for Israel. The best way to be a friend to Israel is to criticize Ariel Sharon. I leave it to you to imagine the friendly exchanges this precept spawned around here.)

So: a good citizen criticizes.

With Kerry you see an actual, honest-to-god Senator who has lived out his entire life according to this old and failed idea. It’s one thing for a college professor, who in fact does spend his time studying things “critically,” in the positive as well as the negative sense of the word, to believe that critical thought is the highest calling in life. Critical inquiry is a scholar’s job.

But for a U.S. Senator to have spent his entire working life Criticizing America is horrifying.

I don’t care what anyone says, the man can’t think.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:26 pm 68. Skookumchuk:

Catherine:

But for a U.S. Senator to have spent his entire working life Criticizing America is horrifying.

Kinda tough then to be an inspirational Commander In Chief, no? If you care, that is.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:36 pm 69. Catherine:

hi Skookumchuk!

Smoked you out with that one, huh??

But, yeah, that’s my question: who’s he gonna criticize if he’s president? (Remember that hilarious old line about Nixon appointing an investigator to find out if Nixon went to China? Something like that?)

I guess Kerry can do what Clinton did, and keep the War Room open.

I know I’ll enjoy that.

While my Overall View is that the country will survive whatever president it elects, AND that I COULD BE WRONG & THEY COULD BE RIGHT–Kerry might be a better president than Bush at this time, and there’s no doubt the presidency will change him in ways we can’t foresee–still . . . a big part of me thinks: Jeez. The guy’s 60. He’s been like this FOREVER.

How does Dissent-Is-Patriotic work for The Leader Of The Free World?

Of course, Kaus thinks we could use a calm period of mediocre presidenting right about now, and since I remain a staunch Kaus fan, I’m going to adopt that view, should Kerry win.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:45 pm 70. TmjUtah:

Catherine -

(Nice bold, eh?)

I was a daily reader at the Dish from the first week I read blogs. I seek different viewpoints and AS was definitely different.

I just tried to search up the threads and articles from the time that I dropped him from my reading list but have not been able to come up with what I was looking for. In the course of that search I find that today is sort of a flash-mob about AS and Jonah Goldberg…go figure.

I remember the period as being between two and three months. Using ‘facthammer’ was probably imprecise in this case; what did happen was that a lot of people left and a lot of people joined his readership. I followed the story, and AS entries regarding them on the Dish, for about a week, and decided that he was playing both sides of the coin. So I left.

I don’t want flash off a gay marriage debate here. Let me just say that defending the institution of marriage doesn’t mean anti-gay, and I believe that the issue was pushed into the courts when it was precisely to frame the argument as exactly that. My oldest daughter and I talked about this issue on the way home from school on Tuesday. I told her that a Zebra has four legs, a tail, and whinnies…but that there will never be a zebra in the winner’s circle at the Kentucky Derby. It’s not a horse, it’s a zebra. That’s my feeling on the whole thing.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:51 pm 71. Skookumchuk:

Catherine:

Of course, Kaus thinks we could use a calm period of mediocre presidenting right about now, and since I remain a staunch Kaus fan, I’m going to adopt that view, should Kerry win.

Soooo . . . a weak horse for the next four to eight years might not be such a bad idea, then?

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:51 pm 72. Catherine:

a couple of things

KerrySpot has an item from a major Spanish terror judge saying Bin Laden is not able to function as leader of Al Qaeda.

Has anyone here seen polling data showing how many Americans believe the guy is alive?

My brother, last weekend, had an interesting theory about Bin Laden.

He thinks that not only is he dead, but the Bushies know he’s dead.

He pointed out that Rumsfeld said early on that they’d never catch him, which struck me as extremely odd at the time, to tell the truth. Why shouldn’t they catch him? They’d caught Ramzi Yousef and others; and even if the odds seemed against their catching him, why tell the country, going into war, ‘we can’t catch him’ when that’s all anyone’s thinking about at the moment?

My brother thinks they decided not to catch him. They decided to kill him, and not tell anyone.

That way he couldn’t be a martyr, he couldn’t be mourned. He’d just be gone.

That makes sense to me.

Heck, what was my other point?

I forget.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:54 pm 73. jedrury:

On the issue of war and its many F-U-B-A-R-S,

one needs only read Rick Atkinson’s Pulitzer prize winning history of the US Army’s November 1942 North African campaign called “An Army At Dawn.” Ike was lucky he did not get his ticket pulled in that campaign. Patton comes off as arrogant and ineffective. Yet, the Americans slogged on until they actually learned to fight. This is Atkinson’s thesis. The history is stunningly written with appropriate cameos and descriptions of the battles and strategies.

But, it is evident that the news media and the Andrew Sullivans of the world will not give

the administration a break because, in fact,

they are ignorant of history and consumed by their political agendas.

Any snafus in our military operations are grounds for their claim of incompetency. They give no quarter for the disorderliness of war, claiming for themselves the high moral ground of being journalists or knowledgeable observers. Their stories are focused on finding the seams in the war effort and exploiting them as foundations for their arguments against the war and the president.

Oct 15, 2004 - 5:55 pm 74. Terrye:

Catherine:

Yes I am well aware of the dissent is good argument.

Didn’t Jefferson it was our job as citizens to be vigilant?

There is a difference between being vigilant and assuming if there is choice to make between your country and the VC you go with the VC. That goes way and beyond dissent. It also served to help radicalize younger people who assumed that a Vet like Kerry must know what he was talking about. I was much yunger than Kerry but I remember him.

Dissent should be selective and should serve a purpose rather than grandstanding. It seems to me that for a lot of people the America is wrong position has become default. The result has been to politize issues that should be judged by their intrinsic worth. For instance everything from stem cell research to global warming has become political fodder.

If Kerry should be elcted I intend to treat him and his supporters with the same courtesy and respect they have shown me. Do unto others….

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:07 pm 75. kynna:

Andrew Sullivan is a huge disappointment. I also sent him $100 hard earned smacks during his first pledge drive. I recommended him to people. I haven’t read him in about 9 months.

I guess I can’t blame him. I probably wanted him to be something I imagined him to be. Kinda like he’s doing with Kerry.

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:07 pm 76. Terrye:

Catherine:

I don’t know waht he polling data is but I have heard alot of people say Osama is dead and that the administration decided he was going to die quietly. no fuss, no muss, no dancing and wailing in the streets etc.

But if this is true does Kerry know? And if not will they tell Mr. Blabbermouth?

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:12 pm 77. Catherine:

Terrye

I wonder if this is a Midwestern “meme”?

It makes huge sense, but I’ve never heard a soul say it out here, and I think I would have.

Great, great post on ellisblog

How Would You End This Paragraph?

It’s a quiz! Here’s a paragraph from today’s Washington Post article about John Kerry the “manager:”

Kerry has a history of drilling into small matters, as well. In 1996, when he and his Republican opponent for U.S. Senate, then-Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld, agreed to limit spending on advertising, and lawyers presented them with a draft agreement, “Weld decided to sign in an hour,” said Chris Gregory, Kerry’s political director at the time. “Two weeks later, Kerry is still finding problems: ‘This word is wrong. They dropped a comma. We can’t sign this.’ ” Ultimately, he signed. He also won the election.

So the question is this: Do you end it as the Post did (”He also won the election.”)? Or do you end it: “Within a month, he broke the deal.”

You make the call!

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:17 pm 78. TmjUtah:

Our challenge is not to neutralize individuals; there’s never been a Hitler to kill that would end this war.

OBL dead or alive does not change the strategic requirement to transform the mideast/southwest Asia arc from barbarity to democracy.

Think about it. How many pundits, politicoes, and street theater participants would welcome the confirmed news of the death of OBL as cause to call the war a win and come home? I bet that number is only slightly larger than that of the folks who are ready to surrender right now. I agree, his ambiguous status doesn’t hurt us.

I have zero information on the extent of the postbattle surveillance that took place after Tora Bora. Maybe they took DNA samples, maybe they didn’t. Maybe they monitored satellite calls in Pakistan or they didn’t. I’ve thought that OBL was dead since then and haven’t seen sqaut to make me change my mind. A man who can send audio tapes without mentioning the NYT headline for the day or won’t make a video shot while he stands in front of a white wall or a blanket is either dead or retired…and I don’t think Osama is drawing the Saud equivalent of Social Security.

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:22 pm 79. Catherine:

TmJUtah

I remember the period as being between two and three months. Using ‘facthammer’ was probably imprecise in this case; what did happen was that a lot of people left and a lot of people joined his readership. I followed the story, and AS entries regarding them on the Dish, for about a week, and decided that he was playing both sides of the coin.

Interesting.

I wonder if I’d already left by then.

The two-to-three month timeline actually sounds correct, though, given that magazines have . . . OK, I have now forgotten the leadtime for a magazine.

I should just Declare Victory and Enter My Second Childhood now.

(Two to three months is sounding right . . . )

Kynna

I guess I can’t blame him. I probably wanted him to be something I imagined him to be. Kinda like he’s doing with Kerry

Well, I feel like a frigging dweeb.

All that emotion and drama, and I was just lapping it up.

YUCK.

jedrury

They are ignorant of history and consumed by their political agendas

And not just that: they are consumed by their Abstract Intellectual Categories.

Now Robert George has got a piece in NEW REPUBLIC on why he, as a conservative, cannot vote for George Bush, because George Bush has betrayed the core principle of conservatism, that principal being: Accountability, i.e. Bush does not fire people who screw up.

Apparently the guy is voting for Kerry. This is your Major Conservative Intellectual we’re talking about here.

Maybe it’s not such a good thing conservatives Have More Big Ideas.

Soooo . . . a weak horse for the next four to eight years might not be such a bad idea, then

Hoo boy.

Kerry is one weak horse, that’s for sure.

You’ve got to try to see the Pelosi documentary.

In one scene Kerry does an honest-to-god Ted-Danson-doing-a-soft-shoe-shuffle-in-the-parking-lot dance from BODY HEAT. It’s astounding. He’s off by himself, and he’s apparently trying to move some tiny pebble along the pavement with his foot, either that or he actually is dancing.

Then there’s the scene where he folds himself in two in the center of an ice rink.

That’ll scare them. (It might, too. A guy who can fold himself in two on an ice rink. Think about it. Scares me.)

Kaus has never believed the strong horse theory of terrorism.

He’s more in the incitement-to-violence camp.

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:34 pm 80. Catherine:

TmJUtah

Our challenge is not to neutralize individuals; there’s never been a Hitler to kill that would end this war.

Maybe, maybe not.

I’m on board for transformation, but not so much because I think Bin Laden’s death wouldn’t be a huge loss to the jihadis.

Assuming Bodansky is right, and I do, he was a real leader.

You don’t come by those guys everywhere.

I guess I’d say that if Bin Laden is dead, we here in the U.S. actually are significantly safer.

Europe is probably just as much at risk (and I think Madrid is evidence) which is an irony.

The reason I can’t personally declare victory and Enter My Second Childhood when it comes to the WOT is that I’m confident that at some point another leader will appear.

Worse yet, Martin Rees’s book makes clear that even if no one of Bin Laden’s capabilities does put himself forward, technological advances are making it progressively easier for a couple of dufuses with a credit card to launch a Major Attack on western civilization. For instance, there’s some guy in New Zealand, I think it is, who’s building an ABM missile in his garage. (Is ABM right?)

Rees is a major frowny-face when it comes to America & the WOT & all that jazz, but he’s betting–he has literally laid a wager–that within 20 years time we will see a biological attack that will kill 20 million people.

So I’m staying the course, Bin Laden or no.

btw, there were serious reports, not long after the big bombing of Tora Bora, that the U.S. had suddenly rounded up a bunch of geneticists, were maybe flying them into Afghanistan, etc, etc.

I think these appeared in NEWSWEEK.

It was clear that the reporters believed they were testing DNA to see if it belonged to Bin Laden.

It was another one of those no-follow-up-here stories.

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:47 pm 81. Catherine:

off-topic, but cool

Everyone should immediately go over to ellisblog and check out the second post, about Dave Elliot’s new book!

Dave Elliot teaches cartooning in the after-school program I co-chair!

http://johnellis.blogspot.com/

Oct 15, 2004 - 6:49 pm 82. Lonewacko:

What unexhausted option did Bush have left? I mean, realistically.

Four days ago I asked here for options besides a) inaction or b) what Bush did. No one came up with a single idea. Care to give it a shot?

Oct 15, 2004 - 7:51 pm 83. Old Dad:

Mr. Sullivan is a brilliant reprobate. Reprobate, not because he is gay, but reprobate because he has let personal heart break become political perversion.

One can’t be pro Operation Iraqi Freedom and pro Kerry.

That’s a tough political reality, but then again, I’m not trying to sell advertising, or get elected.

Oct 15, 2004 - 8:25 pm 84. Morgan:

Lonewacko -

I believe the question was put to you first, and in a more straightforward fashion than your formulation.

There are two problems with your version. First, the definition of “inaction” is left open. Certainly doing nothing qualifies, but does “continuing the inspections” count? Increasing the number of inspectors in Iraq? Convening a summit?

Second, of course there are any number of actions other than “what Bush did” that could have been taken. Bush could have cut a record urging Saddam to quit the country, maybe spending a few million dollars to cover up American involvement. He could have tried to invent a time machine, allowing his grandson Bobby to go back to Iraq and give a large gift to Saddam’s mother, hoping to alter the course of Saddam’s life enough to prevent the whole problem.

Problem is, those options aren’t realistic. So we’re back to the question posed to you.

“What unexhausted option did Bush have left? I mean, realistically.”

You, after all, are the one who claims with certainty that not all options were exhausted. We can then argue whether your other options are realistic. We are unlikely to agree, but at least we won’t be arguing definitions.

What’s your alternative?

Oct 15, 2004 - 8:26 pm 85. richard mcenroe:

Please. First it was the McCloskey editorials and such in the papers.Gary Trudeau starts running his week-long Republicans against Bush trip, Sullivan comes up with this twaddle, then TNR. “A Chorus Line” should have such choreography. Obviously the Favorite Son strategy has sunk without a ripple and this is the replacement meme.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:19 pm 86. richard mcenroe:

And when I meet a married gay couple who can stop an airplane from hitting a building, then I’ll believe gay marriage is more pressing than the war on terror. Until then, I cannot take Andrew Sullivan seriously.

Oct 15, 2004 - 9:22 pm 87. Kevin P:

Roger;

It is so funny to see Andrew squirm and develop this fantasy of what Kerry will be forced to do in Iraq. I hate to break it to Mr. Sullivan but Kerry will cut and run and he won’t care that Andrew will call him bad names when he does it. Sullivan has created this fantasy Kerry scenario to cover the fact that he is not voting for Bush because of the gay marriage issue. He can’t stand that he has become a single issue voter(which I don’t think is automatically a bad thing) and has to create this tortured logic to soothe his guilt feelings he is having because he knows deep in his heart that Kerry will get out of Iraq so fast that the terrorists will need a month or two to organize the demise of the first partially democratic government in Iraq. Denial is a powerfull thing.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:29 pm 88. M. Simon:

I thought mentioning Mary C. was good tactics for Kerry even if tacky in the extreme.

It might peel a few Religious Republicans to stay home and it reminds us independents the kind of crowd we are running with.

Pretty good tactics.

And it has got all us Bush supporters all euphemistic about what is going on.

So let me say it out loud. Most of the gay hatred in the country comes from the right. This is a fact. The DOMA is all about catering to that hatred. Or should it be cratering?

OK? We all know this. Why hide?

None the less we need Bush for his war fighting capabilities. It does not mean I’m happy about his whole program.

Kerry did what he did because he thought it might peel some Bush supporters. Thank you Senator for forcing the right to face its own prejudices. The rule is: lose your prejudice or lose.

Now the Senator himself is rather ambiguous (nuanced?) on the issue so he is getting a pass more or less.

Still. I think it was a good move on his part.

Politics ain’t bean bag.

I’m enjoying the fight.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:31 pm 89. richard mcenroe:

Speaking of enjoying the fight, what do you all think of this for my new picket sign (gonna be about 6′ x 2′:

GLOBAL TEST SCORES

BUSH

Afghanistan

Australia

America (next)

KERRY

France

UNsatisfactory

Vietnam — INCOMPLETE

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:40 pm 90. M. Simon:

Suppose you are Andrew and your kind have been persecuted forever and then a political group with a lot of influence intends to make the second class citizenship official.

We saw where those attitudes led in ‘36.

I do not think what we are seeing is on that level.

Still it is a cause for concern.

I do find it interesting that homophobes will have to figuratively embrace Mary C. to win this election.

Thank you Senator K. for your most excellent service.

Oct 15, 2004 - 10:40 pm 91. M. Simon:

Richard,

Excellent.

America (final 2 Nov)

It is kida long for your sign but I think it fits the theme.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:00 pm 92. M. Simon:

America (final 2 Nov)

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:02 pm 93. Matteo:

M. Simon–

With all due respect, I don’t think you know enough about religious Republicans to be making such comments. Kerry will lose far more votes from religious folks (and soccer moms for that matter) for bringing up Mary Cheney, than he will lose from these prejudiced morons you assume the right to be. “I do find it interesting that homophobes will have to figuratively embrace Mary C. to win this election”, is quite a prejudiced and loaded statement in itself. I don’t think the “homophobes” to whom you so kindly refer will have the slightest trouble!

I apologize as a moderate right-winger to be somehow soiling your independent spotlessness and purity as you run with my crowd! It must be quite distasteful.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:08 pm 94. flenser:

I’ll sure be glad when this election is over, and M. Simon f*ck’s off back to the Democrats. Don’t let the door hit you on your un-soiled ass on your way out.

These kind of delusions of intellectaul and moral grandeur seem to be endemic to liberal Democrats. People like that don’t have too far to slip to reach Michael Moore territory.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:22 pm 95. Matteo:

For the record, “than he will lose” should have been “than Bush will lose” in my previous post.

Oct 15, 2004 - 11:26 pm 96. klrfz1:

lonewackoff:

Four days ago I asked [at Vodkapundit] for options besides a) inaction or b) what Bush did. No one came up with a single idea. Care to give it a shot?

I don’t have a long series of questions for you, lonewackoff, just one. What happened to you? You had all of these Bush voters hanging on your every post and then you just disappeared. You were this close to swinging all of their votes. Then you quit. You just gave up. Slacker.

Here’s the real [expletive deleted] truth about your beloved John Kerry. He spent 20 years in the US Senate and accomplished nothing. If elected he will be a do nothing president.

Andrew Sullivan is wrong to think John Kerry supports gay marriage. He will do nothing to advance that cause. He will also do nothing to prevent it. Like always, John Kerry will do nothing.

Oct 16, 2004 - 12:34 am 97. klrfz1:

First Post Honors!

Take that Jonah!

Oct 16, 2004 - 12:40 am 98. Charlie (Colorado):

Lonewacko, you claimed that Bush had other unexercvised options, and asked you to name them — and enumerated a number of conditions that such a list of options would realistically have to consider.

You responded by asking me to name other options, and pointed to a posting over at Steven Green’s place saying your request there went unanswered.

From this I infer that you can’t think of any options. Neither can I.

Until you can offer some realistic options, I think we have to conclude that, in fact, Bush had exhausted all options before war.

I think we can also infer, sadly, that we’ve found another troll who isn’t really ready to hit against the pitching in this league.

Oct 16, 2004 - 4:24 am 99. Terrye:

Lone:

Hans Blix said that the British dossier was not overstated. He said there was a presumption of wmd stockpiles in Iraq because there was no evidence those weapons had been accounted for or destroyed. He said they found evidence of illegal weapons. Resolution 1441 is very explicit, it calls for compliance from Saddam not only proof of wmd stockpiles. What evidence was there that Saddam was ever going to comply? Even when his regime was hanging in the balance? You can revise history all you want, but Bush had to work with what was in front of him.

Would Kerry have done the same? Who knows? I doubt if Kerry knows. I think the man calls a summit with his iwfe and valet to assist him in matching his socks. So what he would do in a matter of this importance I can’t say.

And I hope for all our sakes we don’t have to find out.

Oct 16, 2004 - 4:35 am 100. Charlie (Colorado):

Lonewacko, Jonah explicates my feelings quite nicely here.

Well, maybe “nicely” isn’t quite the right word….

Oct 16, 2004 - 4:35 am 101. Terrye:

Catherine:

I think that Wapo article shows us that being an anal retentive kind of guy works for you in Ma.

Oct 16, 2004 - 4:37 am 102. Terrye:

M. Simon:

I disagree with that. I think most conservative people will be far more upset with Kerry’s cynical and deliberate use of an opponent’s family in a cmapaign than they will be concerned about Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation.

I have been a liberal all my life and I know damn well that a lot of the nastier isms out there concerning morality and race exists among liberals as well. They just hide it better.

So don’t insult these people.

Oct 16, 2004 - 4:41 am 103. Buddy Larsen:

Lord, you Simon regulars are literally on FIRE in this colyum. Many attagirls n’ boys, but mind-stickers after my read-down, charlie, the guy looking for Bush options, i think you boxed that little thing for him pretty well, and richard, you;re right on the new coordinated attack, from ‘nuisance’ (Kerry: “Hey, how many bodies have landed in YOUR front yard? None? Fine, if my media contacts quit covering it, terrorism will go away”) to the ‘neutral pollster’ lady on Fox yestiddy who said 70% of American women are now for Kerry, and it’s due to the ‘vulnerability’ he showed with the ‘married-up’ smile! I mean, 70? No, even if the camera hadn’t outted here, her stat-grab did. But it’s all related: “Quit looking at unpleasant things, and they’ll not exist! George Bush is NUTZ, asking us to keep focused on war! How icky!”

Oct 16, 2004 - 5:22 am 104. FDF:

If elected, Kerry will own up to his responsibilities in the war on terror for fear of being criticized by Fox? Somehow I don’t think so and don’t want to take the chance. Apparently marrying his boyfriend in a formal ceremony sanctioned by law is more important to Andrew than having a President committed to fighting this war–a war whose purposes and absolute necessity Andrew has been so eloquent about. Still, when you’re in love…

Oct 16, 2004 - 6:30 am 105. Buddy Larsen:

Better watch that, FDF. You’re liable to show up in the next Kerry speech:

“I’m sure FDF’s family, even though he hates homos, still loves him as much as they would if he were the biggest Poof in Funnytown.”

Not that you hate anything, FDF, just that I saw a shot at a cheap joke.

Oct 16, 2004 - 7:22 am 106. Austin:

I’m not willing to pull the lever for Kerry just to reform the Democratic Party.

If one desires a reformed Democratic Party, pull the lever for Bush. You want change? Contribute to a vote that demonstrates to the Democratic Party just how out-of-touch it is with the American voter. Watch how fast they change once they realize that it is costing them elections.

Oct 16, 2004 - 9:02 am 107. Charlie (Colorado):

Lord, you Simon regulars are literally on FIRE in this colyum.

No, actually it’s kind of chilly here this morning.

I hope none of the rest of us are literally on fire today either, as that would be tragic and sad.

You might want to look up what “literally” means.

Okay, so this is a little bit of a pet peeve.

Oct 16, 2004 - 9:29 am 108. Lonewacko:

“Bush could have cut a record urging Saddam to quit the country, maybe spending a few million dollars to cover up American involvement… Problem is, those options aren’t realistic.”

What can I say to someone who seems to favor bombs even when propaganda could be an even more effective alternative? Even when bombs are necessary, propaganda is almost always a necessary addition.

In any case, in that earlier thread I was responding to yet another attempt by Bush supporters to excuse Bush’s incompetence. “The French were received billions from Saddam, what could Bush do? Bush had no other choice!”

The fact that many Bush supporters are unable to think of realistic possibilities other than inaction or what Bush did is unfortunate, but try again. One main possible course of action I have in mind has a strong propaganda component. Whether Bush could have pulled that off is quite questionable. But, then again, he was successful in vilifying France and Germany but not in a way that really mattered or has had much of an effect outside the U.S.

Oct 16, 2004 - 12:05 pm 109. klrfz1:

Welcome back to the party lonewackerooni! More questions have you? That is the definition of Democrat these days: many questions but no answers. You won’t say. Kerry won’t say as he contradicts himself every few sentences. I know why you Democrats attack Bush but never defend Kerry. Why, you ask? (I knew you’d ask) Because Kerry’s record is indefensible. That’s why his bio stops at Vietnam.

Oct 16, 2004 - 1:06 pm 110. Terrye:

lone:

The other day they found yet another mass grave in Iraq. Small children were bound and executed and thrown in that grave on top of their mothers. Propaganda is all well and good but when you are dealing with people who do such things it is naive and stupid to think that you can talk your way out of standing up to the dictator. Sooner or later you have to back up the propaganda with something other than more propaganda.

I am not ashamed we did it, I am ashamed we did not do it before those babies were machine gunned.

So take your moral superiority and stuff it.

Oct 16, 2004 - 1:31 pm 111. jerry:

Lonewacko:

I once asked Thibaud about his credentials and he was good enough to tell us. Unlike Kerry supporters, I do not think military credentials are required to have a thoughtful opinion but it does give a sense of where you are coming from. So, I am interested in your background. Do you have military/Intelligence community experience? Do you work for a defense contractor or think tank? Are you an historian or do you take a general interest in military history, e.g., read people like John Keegan?

As I said I don’t think you need to be credentialed to provide thoughtful opionions. However, so far I have seen no specific proposals from you on soft power that are backed by historical evidence. By the way I was on the Afghan campaign PSYOP working group.

Oct 16, 2004 - 2:08 pm 112. richard mcenroe:

Jerry ó I’ve known three intelligence “professionals” in my day. Two were UFO con artists and one is a take-over-New-Hampshire-and-run-through-woods-shouting- “I’m a free man!” libertarian wacko… not a sterling average.

I never much trusted intel beyond what our own patrols brought back and TTMA (turn the map around).

Oct 16, 2004 - 4:02 pm 113. BD:

Sullivan’s a laughingstock.

He’s turned on Bush for one reason, and one reason only – everyone knows what it is and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

He knows Kerry will abandon the War on Terror – but Sullivan has to pretend he won’t or else he’ll have to explain why he’s decided that prosecution of the war is less important than whether a candidate will oppose the judiciary’s attempt to impose gay marriage on the United States.

Sullivan’s shallowness is on display for everyone to see.

Oct 16, 2004 - 5:54 pm 114. Charlie (Colorado):

Lonewacko:

The fact that many Bush supporters are unable to think of realistic possibilities other than inaction or what Bush did is unfortunate, but try again.

To be blunt, lonewacko, you claim there are “realistic possibilities”, but your only argument for it has been that Bush supporters are dumb.

Remember, the question is “realistic possibilities that are neither inaction nor what Bush did.” I can think of several options other than force, but they seem to me to reduce to inaction.

One main possible course of action I have in mind has a strong propaganda component.

So you do have an option in mind, but you won’t actually tell us what it is — just allude to it and claim it’s better.

No wonder you like Kerry.

Whether Bush could have pulled that off is quite questionable.

Which means you don’t actually think your plan is realistic either.

Jesus, man, at least try to make some sense.

Oct 17, 2004 - 12:00 pm 115. Tony:

Mr. Simon recommends a link to Norman Podhoretz as an example of an enlightened geo-political world view of our current difficulties.

I read the first few pages of Mr. Podhoretz and noted his description of Margaret Thatcher as having been Prime Minister of England. That kind of sloppy presentation of facts does not augur well for us having any confidence in the man’s grasp of the nuances elsewhere.

Oct 17, 2004 - 1:09 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: