For more than two years now, Andrew Sullivan has been launching a war against a civil discussion of gay marriage and the Administration’s policies on the treatment of terrorists captured on the battlefield. And just as importantly, he launched a war to besmirch the president’s policies to win the War on Terror. Rather than promote debate of these difficult and oftentimes contentious issues, rather than respect the opinions of his intellectual adversaries, rather than evaluate each issue on its merits, Andrew wants to drag the brave servicemen fighting for our country into his campaign to smear the President of the United States, his aides and supporters.*
That’s exactly what he did in his post yesterday when he attempted to link the brutal torture and murder of two U.S. servicemen to what he calls “the logic of torture-reciprocity endorsed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales.” On this blog, Bruce found Andrew’s post “outrageous” while the Conjecturer’s Joshua Foust called it “revolting.” In a comment to Joshua’s post, the Malcontent said that Andrew “has gone from respectable to reprehensible.” Dan Riehl responded with a stronger one-word rejoinder.
It is striking that Andrew’s response to the barbaric murder of two servicemen is neither to offer sympathy for their families or to condemn the sadists who took their lives, but to make a mean-spirited snarky comment about the President and his top advisors.
That’s because since February 24, 2004, Andrew Sullivan has been more interested in attacking President Bush than dispassionately commenting on Administration policy. He has, as in the linked post, accused the Administration of sanctioning torture, focusing on uncorroborated reports and leaving out key details. As Heather MacDonald has shown, Andrew’s “torture narrative’ ignores some inconvenient facts.”
A serious person can hardly compare what Al Qaeda did to those two soldiers to the policies the Administration has considered (and adopted). Al Qaeda wasn’t trying to get information from these soldiers, but was inflicting pain merely for the sake of inflicting pain. When the Administration sanctions the use of interrogation techniques (that Andrew considers torture), they’re interested not in inflicting pain but in getting information from terrorists in order to stop their cohorts from committing atrocities like the one committed this week and others that are far worse, far, far, far, far worse.
At the same time as Americans are reacting in horror to these brutal murders, the Marine Corps announces that it is charging seven Marines and a sailor “with murder in the April death of an Iraqi civilian.” When our servicemen are accused of killing in cold blood or torturing detainees, our military investigates the allegations and when appropriate, presses charges. When such allegations are leveled against Al Qaeda’s operatives, their leaders honor them.
And looking at Abu Ghraib, the story that appears to have first piqued Andrew’s interest in torture, we see that our military had begun investigating the allegations long before the media turned the crimes into its issue du jour. An investigation was conducted. The accused soldiers were tried and are now serving time in prison. A commission was impaneled to find out what went wrong. The head of that panel, former Carter Administration official James Schlesinger wrote that the crimes “were limited in number [and] are not representative of the overall behavior of our forces.” Moreover, his panel “found no indication of a policy encouraging abuse.“
While Andrew still occasionally writes a thoughtful piece — or makes an insightful comment, for the past 2 years, 3 months and 28 days, he has been more interested in vilifying the president than in discussing his policies. When the president announced on February 24, 2004, that he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) amending the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man to one woman, instead of making a case against the president’s proposal, Andrew accused him of declaring war.
His rhetoric is at odds with the Preface to a first-rate anthology he edited, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con : A Reader where he writes:
How we conduct this debate is almost as important as its conclusion. And in many cultural war debates, there is little time for one side or the other. This collection stands against that tradition.
Given those words, it’s amazing that Andrew would declare that by stating a position at odds with his (and my) own, the president was declaring war on us. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer (whose work Andrew includes in his anthology) suggests that activists pushing gay marriage through the courts “forced the issue,” hence the president wasn’t declaring war, but just joining the debate.
At the same time, Andrew was accusing the president of waging war, Krauthammer, also an opponent of the FMA, was welcoming the opportunity for debate:
I welcome the debate on the constitutional amendment because it will shift the locus of this issue from unelected judges to where it belongs: the House and the Senate and the 50 state legislatures. In the end, however, I would probably vote against the amendment because for me the sanctity of the Constitution trumps everything, even marriage. Moreover, I would be loath to see some future democratic consensus in favor of gay marriage blocked by such an amendment.
Perhaps Krauthammer’s column influenced Andrew. It is dated February 27, 2004, 3 days after Andrew’s outburst while Andrew’s preface is dated March 2004.
Despite that preface and the re-issue of that excellent anthology with arguments on both sides of he debate, Andrew no longer seems interested in conducting a debate on gay marriage or the Iraq war — or any policy of this Administration for that matter — with any kind of civility. Yesterday, he called the president “shallow, monstrous, weak, and petty.”
It’s too bad Andrew has sunk to such name-calling because he once offered some of the strongest arguments of any pundit, for gay marriage, a strong national defense, smaller government and a host of other issues. It seems that he has become more focused on attacking the president, his advisors and supporters than in engaging in a civil debate of their policies and their ideas.
His transformation is a great loss for all those who delight in such debate, particularly for us gay conservatives, those of us who were once inspired by Andrew’s courage and encouraged by his success.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Weird…
I have limited knowledge of him but the last I heard he was pro US action in Iraq. Was I dreaming or did he switch sides? Of course Kerry and such were once pro sanity so I find it hard to keep track of dems and their opinions.
Yup, Chuck, he switched, just follow the links in this post to see how.
I gotta second Dan Riehl’s one word assessment. I’ve only read two articles by Sully and I find no enticement to read more.
It would appear that Sully went off the deep end with the liberals.
Whatever you do just don’t let Dear Leader lose face.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008794.php
BTW, I see we may now have some good candidates for that amnesty-for-killing-American-soldiers you guys are so enthralled with:
http://tinyurl.com/hkxqz
Ian… no one takes you seriously. Frankly, I don’t think *you* take you seriously. I think you’re just trying to be cute.
Do you honestly think that *any* proposed limited amnesty would apply to the murder of US troops by Iraqi troops? Honestly? It’s as likely to apply to that sort of murder (the article used the word murder so I’m assuming it wasn’t friendly fire) as it would to the torture and death (beheading I think) of the two soldiers who were abducted.
Well, no, because you aren’t being honest. Are you.
As for Sullivan… saying that the enemy in Iraq can not even aspire to protection under the Geneva Conventions… which *is* a reciprocal document… means only that. If our behavior towards them is limited by something it is NOT the Conventions. Nothing at all about that statement *requires* that we use their own behavior as a guide. (Reciprocal torture would look a whole lot different from what we’ve actually got.)
As an example… legal combatants would require being given amnesty for the soldiers. That the insurgents don’t count as legal combatants does not *require* that we refuse any measure of amnesty for them.
If you were serious, Ian, instead of cute, the limits on the proposed amnesty would be more important to you than scoring cleverness points.
Because I am at a total loss for words in light of what we now know was done to PFC’s Tucker & Manchaca, I defer to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:
Allow me to quote from a bit describing what those animals did to our soldiers:
“…have their hearts cut out, their testicles cut off, their penises cut off and stuffed in their mouths, arms contorted and eyes gouged?”
…and that’s not mentioning the beheading.
And what do we hear from the puling, pissant, terrorist-supporting MSM? Nothing. They don’t even have the courage to describe what those fucking sand lice did, presumably because they don’t want us to get angry with the ululating chimps hopping around with rags on their heads, waving their scimitars and committing atrocities that would make Dr. Mengele curl his toes.
What we DO hear is an endless litany about Abu Ghraib, Haditha and the fact that a few of the koranimal insects have killed themselves at Gitmo.
Cry me a fucking river, will you?
Oh, and don’t give me a lot of bull about the Geneva Conventions either. If anybody invoking them had ever bothered to actually read them, as have I, they’d know that it specifically DOESN’T apply to subhuman lifeforms like the ones that tortured PFCs Tucker and Menchaca to death. I won’t bother going over it again and I don’t have to, since LC & IB Confederate Yankee already did it for me.
And don’t give me the “but we’re better than them” mantra either. We are. WE DON’T HAVE TO PROVE IT!
You fight fair, you get treated fair. You follow the rules, we follow the rules. That’s how you play the game. If you’re playing to win, that is, which is what I thought we were doing. Obviously I was wrong. Winning isn’t important here. Losing is OK, as long as you can tell your genitally mutilated daughters that at least you didn’t get your hands dirty when you fought and lost against Islam and Shariah.
Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that.
War is a brutal, unpleasant, nasty affair, which is why we don’t engage in it unless we have a good reason to. It’s also a match with only one winner, and it really sucks being the loser. Ask the residents of Carthage, Constantinople, Dresden and Hiroshima. And in order to win, you have to find out what the enemy’s weaknesses are, what will utterly destroy him, and then exploit them until they’re left with no capacity to resist.
In other words: You make it abundantly clear to them that resistance is useless, that they’re beaten and that they can choose to surrender or die like pigs. And, trust me on this one, three squares and a cot in sunny Cuba with prayer mats and free korans isn’t the way to go. That’s not going to make them fear us, that’s not going to make them think twice. As a matter of fact, considering their standard of living, going to Gitmo is probably the best thing that could ever happen to them. At least that way all they have to bitch about is whether the rice pilaf and the Duck a l’Orange is warm enough.
Where’s the outrage?
Two of our soldiers, both of them scrupulously following the Geneva Conventions, were tortured, mutilated and murdered in the most abominable of ways, and all we hear is how it was “all our fault” and how we must “punish those of ours who might have transgressed against our enemies?”
GIVE. ME. A. FUCKING. BREAK!
If we’re doing anything wrong, it’s that we’re not being brutal enough!
The bastards are laughing at us, knowing that we’ll never ever overcome our political correctness, that we’ll never stop the self-flagellations, that we’ll never ever start fighting in a way that will make them fear us.
ODERINT DUM METUANT.
If you think that war is a popularity contest, kindly get your worthless ass off my planet.
Alrighty then…
Eric in Hollywood
P.S. – As for
Urineer, Ian, might I suggest the petulant little prick quit whining about his raging diaper rash – all the better to finally understand how completely infantile and marginal his worldview has become.#5 Ian S — June 22, 2006 @ 1:54 am – June 22, 2006
BTW, I see we may now have some good candidates for that amnesty-for-killing-American-soldiers you guys are so enthralled with
That’s not exactly correct. The proposal that was floated was amnesty (by the Iraqi government, not by the American occupiers) even for persons who were incarcerated for suspicion of killing American soldiers. It has been suggested in the US that the amnesty was only for Iraqis who have killed American soldiers, but that is not correct.
I used to read Sullivan regularly and he was a big help to my coming out as a gay righty. But for a long time now he has specialized in hysterical moralism. I mourn him and do not read.
One of the reasons I remain well to the right of center is that I pay attention to what people are really passionate about, how their values get expressed when they are not posturing. I have never heard or overheard one conversation or comment in my deepest Blue city which shows outrage, anger, contempt, fury or hatred for the Muslim animals who carry on their viral and cancerous jihad. Not one. But I can’t keep track of the expletives, speechs, incantations, mantras, sagas, tantrums and comedy routines that pour scorn and hatred on American Republicans and George Bush. That says volumes to me.
Dan, nicely done.
For me, I’ve started lumping AndieSullivan with Michael Moore, Cindy “Zero” Sheehan, Fred Phelps, and Ann Coulter… irritants and misfits, all.
Oh, and Ian S, it looks like others have finally caught on to your “game” of inflaming ankle biting.
Sorry it took so long for you to be roundly discredited.
Interesting that the number one response here seems to be “So I don’t read him anymore”.
Echo chamber in action I guess.
#6: “Do you honestly think that *any* proposed limited amnesty would apply to the murder of US troops by Iraqi troops?”
Frankly, I don’t know and neither do you. And neither do those moronic Republican Rubber Stamps that defended the idea in the Senate before they had thought through the ramifications. Not to mention those commenters here whose knee-jerk reaction is to simply defend those Rubber Stamps at all costs. It’s Party uber alles.
#9: “That says volumes to me.”
What it says to me is that we EXPECT more from “American Republicans and George Bush” than we do from the jihadists. But by the sounds of the rants here, especially #7, it seems our expectations are futile since it appears the consensus is we should be just like the jihadists. As for:
“War is a brutal, unpleasant, nasty affair, which is why we don’t engage in it unless we have a good reason to.”
well, that’s exactly what WE tried to tell YOU prior to your Iraqi “cakewalk.” Well, suck it up and get used to it because your Dear Leader has declared that it’s “stay the course” until he gets his sorry ass out of office and passes the buck to someone else.
Will somone, ANYONE, PLEASE pass Ian the ointment?!?!?!?
It’s not my turn to change him, damnit!!!
Eric in Hollywood
Ian (#15): “we EXPECT more from “American Republicans and George Bush” than we do from the jihadists.”
Do you think you’re not GETTING more from them than from the jihadists. If you don’t, perhaps you should temporarily bow out of the discussion and reassess. If you can honestly say “the consensus is we should be just like the jihadists”, you’re either not being honest (my guess), or you’re off your rocker. Either way, you’re not helping.
#0 – Dan, good one.
From the beginning of Andrew’s hysterics over Abu Ghraib 2 years ago, I saw him being far more interested in indulging his personal “righteousness” than in dealing with the full set of facts or advancing the state of the debate (so that we could decide, as a country, what constitutes acceptable interrogation).
I can certainly say the same of some others.
As for Ian – I am reassured, even pleased, to see him show his true colors so strongly today. He has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the troops in Iraq at all, nor even desire to be taken seriously in grownup discussion. Matt, I believe the word you were looking for earlier is: t-r-o-l-l.
#17: “Do you think you’re not GETTING more from them than from the jihadists”
Well, duh. I hold our leaders to a FAR higher standard I do any jihadist scum. Don’t you? And before you throw “duh” back to me, reread the rant in #7 and the approving “alrighty then” by one of your side’s “esteemed” commenters to see why it’s not obvious to me that the right holds our leaders to a far higher standard than the jihadists.
“If you can honestly say “the consensus is we should be just like the jihadists”, you’re either not being honest (my guess), or you’re off your rocker.”
In case it wasn’t clear, I was referring to right wing commenters here. The evidence is the rant in #7 and lack of any condemnation of said rant by other conservative commenters.
#19: “He has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the troops in Iraq at all”
How precisely? By condemning the moronic Senators who stood up in the Senate to voice their approval of an amnesty plan that could let the barbaric killers of Menchaca and Tucker go scott free? By arguing about it with you and others here? By arguing against the concept put forth in #7 that we should just get down and wallow in the gutter with the jihadists? By arguing that “stay the course” until the Iraqi occupation buck can be passed off to another President is wrong? C’mon, you made the claim, back it up.
Amazing how spilled American Military blood brings out the worst in the left (and culturally, that’s where people like Andy reside even if he believes he’s a conservative).
2 men in US military uniform are tortured and slaughtered by religious serial killers and Randy Andy wants to blame Bush? He’d have you believe Bush Inc., not Muslim maniacs, shed the blood of these brave boys.
Sure, years ago the left was ‘anti-war’, but they’ve blown past that position and never looked back. Their current position is actually ‘anti military’ – as long as it’s the US military – slowly sinking into the darker waters of anti Americanism.
From Academia, where the US military is treated as a violent cult (but by all means keep encouraging the opening of more mosques on campus) to the MSM (just goggle ‘grim milestone’), any action by the US military comes with the ever-present label of ‘quagmire’ and ‘torture’. The left can’t imagine any situation where US military force is preferable to the UN ‘council for strongly worded letters’ or a formal complaint filed in triplicate with the Human Rights Commission. It’s the equivalent of an international ‘time out’.
It’s the Father Flanagan School of foreign policy; there’s no such thing as a bad culture – except outs. As for the wholesale slaughter of their fellow human beings (in Madrid, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Amman, Beirut, Kandahar, Darfur, Casablanca, Kashmir, Dahab, Mogadishu, Baghdad, Tehran, Manila, Moscow, Beslan, Jakarta, Bali and elsewhere), those rivers of blood are chalked up to ‘cultural differences’, ‘economic disadvantages’ and ‘religious hardliners’ – as if Buddhists or Protestants were lopping the heads, hands and tongues off non believers and oil was $7 dollars a barrel.
And the left wonders why their fellow countrymen don’t trust them with national security? The same reason 5 year old boys aren’t allowed to drive race cars: it’s too dangerous for the rest of us and no one like to see a five year old wet his pants in public.
Oh, my! Apparently Vera has the same spell check as Barbara Streisand!
(should be ‘ours’ not ‘outs’)
Must be the gin….
It’s ironic that Andrew Sullivan got an award from LCR this year. He even cried. (Although I can’t figure out why.) He found his tin foil hat on the way back home, and now he’s back to being a moonbat.
Whose side is LCR on?? I knew there’d be trouble when HRC started sponsoring them.
You know the Left is mighty worried when the likes of lyin Joe Biden and his buds distance themselves from Kerry et al. on the Democrats’ Cut & Run Club… and AndieSullivan takes heat like it’s an Ann Coulter book signing party.
New bumper sticker for the left Democrats in ’06: “Cut & Run: When just saying No ain’t good enuff”.
And for the GayLeft: “We’re marching str8! To the Dem Plantation.”
O wee o, o wee o.
#25: Biden is a foolish fop. His embrace of the Bush “More of the Same Until I Can Pass the Buck” doctrine dooms whatever miniscule chance he ever had of winning the Dem nomination in 2008.
Oh Dear. You would think that Andrew talks about Bush in the same way that this blog and most of its readers talk about Andrew. But it would be difficult indeed to match that kind of hate-filled invective. [Patrick, please note that in my first paragraph, I borrowed all invective (as you put it) from Andrew\’s 02/24/04 post on the president\’s support of the FMA. I provide the link via the asterisk at the end of that paragraph –Dan]
Andrew, like many before him, has (according to this blog), moved into the ranks of \”Them\”. So let loose the rhetorical Dogs of War I suppose. After all, you need to get \”Them\” don\’t you?
I can see the hordes of GP readers and commenter\’s marching up the hillside with torches and Elmer Fudd chanting \”Kill the Wabbit\” now. Or maybe the poor beagle. Whatever. Good ole mob mentality. Gonna burn Andrew at the stake? In the name of St. Bush the Almighty?
Its too bad the standards for \”civil discourse\” that apparently Andrew has violated don\’t apply to this blog.
#27: By definition, any serious criticism of Dear Leader is uncivil discourse. Considering that the title of this blog entry is “Andrew Sullivan Declares War on Civil Discourse” yields the knee-jerk invective observed in the comments is an argument for this site being a clever parody.
Ian S, I borrowed my language (of the title and first paragraph) from Andrew Sullivan’s 02/24/04 post on the president’s stand on the FMA.
I have never said serious criticism of the president is uncivil discourse. Both Bruce and I have offered some ourselves. It’s the language that Andrew uses to which I object. And since you object to my language, it seems you object to Andrew’s as well. Thus, you help me make my point. Thanks.
Certain people who shall remain unmentioned hold America and the Bush administration, particularly, to higher standards because rather than be the worldly sophisticates that they like to think themselves, they don’t see the world at all.
That’s why horrific stuff “over there” isn’t important unless it’s useful in a domestic argument.
They’re freaking isolationists.
How else to explain the deliberate blind eye turned to horror in favor of attacking, yet again, some pet impropriety?
Darfur is only important as a stick to castigate the administration for inaction. Amnesty is only an outrage when it can be used as a tool… packing up and going home, the ultimate Amnesty? All for it. Horribly tortured and mutilated and *then* decapitated soldiers… just a hammer to hammer the message “we’re just like them.”
Is the rest of the world even *real* to you?
#27 – For someone who supposedly has such excellent reasons to look down on this blog and spit upon it, Gryph, you sure spend an awful LOT of time hanging around.
Calarato, GrampaGryph is here because no one will visit HIS blog.
Imagine his world: you write and write away at a blog no one visits, work to wrap yourself in the flag by “defending” gay soldiers who don’t have the spine nor character to stand up and be honest, you have to constantly remind people that –despite what you write and the positions you take– that you’re really NOT against the troops or the mission, and then have to deal with the whole debilitating Bush Derangement Syndrome thing.
It’d be tough. I would wish that conundrum on no one. But to do all that and still keep the meds balanced, it’s sheer miracles raining down every day for GrampaGryph.
Gramps: I thought Dan did a good job of nailing down the very point that Andie deserves to have in focus: Sullivan’s penchant for avoiding facts in a story when it doesn’t fit his preconception. Sort of the very thing you and others here wrongly attribute to the Dark Lord Cheney or his puppet, Geo Bush.
The double standard is YOUR standard; it’s pathetic how low the BushHatred character defect takes you into the gutter. The only echo chamber is your voice bouncing off the gutter’s side and traveling down the sewer grates.
#29: “It’s the language that Andrew uses to which I object. And since you object to my language, it seems you object to Andrew’s as well.”
Dan, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I object to your language. I jsut found it ironic that a post by you taking issue with Andrew’s civil discourse or lack thereof yields such vitriol – i.e. UNcivil discourse – from commenters on the right.
Assume for a moment that Susskind’s description of the events portrayed is entirely accurate. I think it is then pretty hard to quibble with Andrew’s description of Bush as a “shallow, monstrous, weak, and petty man.” How else COULD you describe such a President?
Caralato says:
I don’t look down on this blog, I just think that its utterly silly for its authors and commentors to go around accusing anyone of “Declaring War on Civil Discourse” when thats pretty much an everyday occurrence here.
Don’t like what Andrew says? Fine. But for this blog to criticize the way he says things is ridiculous. If Hillary Clinton was the target of Andrew’s barbs instead of Bush, there would be little outrage from this corner of the blogosphere.
Patrick, my e-mail has been running overhwelmingly in favor of what I said, with one reader saying I was too kind to Andrew.
And I never engage in the kind of vitriol he does. And the only time in this post when iI became as vitriolic as he was when I used his own language.
Assume for a moment that Susskind’s description of the events portrayed is entirely accurate. I think it is then pretty hard to quibble with Andrew’s description of Bush as a “shallow, monstrous, weak, and petty man.”
And if we assume for a moment that Dr. Josef Goebbels’ description of Adolf Hitler is entirely accurate, it would then be pretty hard to quibble with people describing Hitler as a child-loving benevolent leader.
Suskind and Sullivan have the same grip on reality as did Goebbels.
Unfortunately, Dan, you most accurately described the entire situation with Sullivan. I used to read – and value – Andrew’s opinions every day.
Since he came down with a serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, however, rarely worth the time to hop over there.
Too bad. Maybe one day Andrew will recover….
Peg, I don’t think Sullivan will ever recover… it’s like expecting a change in attitude from the GayLeft. For that attitude to change, nothing short of rewinding the clock to the 2000 elections, allowing Gore to win and then win again in 2004 could change the attitude of those with BDS. Oh… and allowing Osama bin Laden to behead Geo Bush on live feed CNN. And Rummie. And Cheney. And Santorum. And Delay.
That would probably be adequate reparations for the seriously BDS types like Gryph, Ian S, lester, raj, CowBoyBob, Mr Moderate and others.
Peg, you and me both. If it weren’t for Dan Riehl’s post (linked on Instapundit), I would never have discovered Andrew’s screed.
#36 – quoting somebody else’s (I imagine some troll’s) comment, “It is… pretty hard to quibble with Andrew’s description of Bush as a ‘shallow, monstrous, weak, and petty man.'”
That reminds me of something. Anyone else see the ridiculous self-contradiction in describing anyone as “shallow, monstrous, weak, and petty”? Which those adjectives, by its nature, would exclude at least one – and possibly all – of the others?
Hint: it’s similar to when BDS sufferers simultaneously ascribe to Bush the lowest IQ of any President we’ve ever had, and genius-level powers of making intricate, snap calculations on behalf of evil.
The Bible says, “By their fruits ye shall know them”. In this case, we can recognize BDS sufferers by the self-contradictions of their raving (or the self-contradictory raving of others they choose to defend).
#34 – “Don’t like what Andrew says? Fine.”
Then what would you have to complain about here, Gryph?
“But for this blog to criticize the way he says things is ridiculous…”
But Gryph, you have long been one of the worst. So, unless you want to make an admission of hypocrisy here, a reasonable reader gets to rule that out as the true or actual source of your objections.
What are we then left with? Let’s face it: You don’t like the content of what this blog authors and (some) commentors say. E.g., their daring to point out Empress Andrianna’s lack of clothes. If people here said things the same way, except they were things you liked, not only would you have no objection – you’d be thrilled.
Again, Gryph: If you truly have such a low opinion of this blog’s hosts / authors and commentors as you have given in #27, why the fuck would you ever visit? Something’s off. Either you’re strangely masochistic / necrophilic… or you fear / suspect the authors and commentors are right, and your dumb insults are a desperate measure to try to boost yourself in your own eyes.
Sidebar for Matt: V says he needs to hear from you again. (Get him to just save your address in Outlook already! 😉 )
Taranto’s comment on the killings and Sullivan’s reaction is not to be missed, for its sheer “truth value”:
…blogress Jeralyn Merritt sees [the mutilated soldiers] as a reminder of America’s sins…Andrew Sullivan similarly laments “the cycle of depravity and defeat.”
This rhetoric about “cycles” appears to reflect a theory of moral equivalence, but in fact it is something else. After all, if the two sides were morally equivalent, one could apply this reasoning in reverse–excusing, for example, the alleged massacre at Haditha on the ground that it was “provoked” by a bombing that killed a U.S. serviceman…
But America’s critics never make this argument… it is understood that America knows better… Only the enemy’s evil acts are thought to be explained away by ours.
Implicit in the “cycle” theory, then, is the premise that the enemy is innocent–not in the sense of having done nothing wrong, but in the sense of not knowing any better. The enemy lacks the knowledge of good and evil–or, to put it in theological terms, he is free of original sin.
America ought to hold itself to a high moral standard, of course, but blaming the other side’s depraved acts on our own (real and imagined) moral imperfections is a dangerous form of vanity.
And, may I (Calarato) add: Of racism. (‘Those brown people can’t possibly have any moral responsibility for their own actions’ type thinking.)
In the blame-Bush or blame-Us reaction of Sullivan and others to the mutilated soldiers, then, we see: Bush Derangement Syndrome, “blame America first” syndrome, liberal moral equivalence, liberal vanity and liberal racism – all rolled into one.
Caralato, you still seem to be under the misguided impression that you are not a “troll”.
I however, revel in the classification. In fact, I think we are under-appreciated as a species.
It’s always much more interesting to hang out at a place where you disagree with other people than to go someplace and be a sheep in an echo chamber blog where they only thing you ever hear is agreement. Otherwise things get real boring quickly. (And the number of “hits” drops off as well).
And after all, if I wasn’t around, you would have one less thing to be outraged at in your life. Which seems to be a big motivation for you to come back to this blog as well. At least I’m honest enough to admit it.
Now, … Go haunt a house!
#43 – “It’s always much more interesting to hang out at a place where you disagree with other people.”
But that’s exactly what you aren’t doing, Gryph.
Really – Your lack of self-awareness is amazing. What you are doing is: Going to someone’s house (Bruce’s and Dan’s), loudly announcing how utterly, irredeemably low you think they are (see #27)… and returning to their hospitality again and again and again.
Necrophile or pathetic liar, Gryph – which is it?
(note both are parasites; I think Matt in #32 has your number there)
Oh, and P.S. – Ought I to read your 2nd-to-last paragraph as an admission on your part, Gryph, that I personally am part of your motivation for coming back here?
I honestly had no idea. Thank you – I guess.
I’m sorry I can’t reciprocate and to me, you are the bit player who often overplays his hand or tramples on the people I admire.
If you wish to know my motivation for coming back to this blog: It has to do with the people I admire genuinely and enjoy reading and learning from: Bruce, Dan, Nick, John, NDT, Matt, Synova, Vera, sometimes RWP or Eric 😉 , etc.