Andrew Sullivan has basically embraced the pure neoconservative position, one that is often critical of the remaining tatters of realism in the Bush administration. Worse, he and his ilk demand immediate liberalization and democratization from friendly, but not very democratic, regimes. Ex liberal hawks–the gang at TNR for instance–seem most prone to this kind of stupidity, the same kind of stupidity that led Carter to pull the rug from underneath the Shah right when he needed our support the most. We know how that panned out.
To show his bona fides, Sullivan has railed against the torture and other authoritarian tactics of allied regimes in the Middle East, especially the Saudis and Musharaff. Ace of Spades shows that Sullivan now sees phantoms to keep his dream world alive. He suggests, for instance that the English terror plot was not really that far along. He must insist this is so to keep himself from admitting he was wrong, because key evidence came from Pakistan, likely through coercive interrogation of one kind or another:
If coercion or outright torture are sometimes useful, [liberals like Sullivan will] have to retreat from that childish position and answer the more adult question, “How many innocent lives will you sacrifice to spare a terrorist pain and discomfort?”
They don’t want to answer that, of course. They’d prefer to insist that such a trade-off is purely hypothetical.
Thus, Andrew Sullivan needs the SkyBomb plot to be essentially a hoax if he is to avoid recanting his last two years’ worth of screeching about coercion and “rogue nations.”
Subscribe To This Feed
One wonders why you pay so homage to Andrew Sullivan, the guy who wrote the book on “gay marriage”–while crusing for anonoymous “bareback sex” in AOL chat rooms.
That fact that Sullivan would exhibit the same philosophical dexterity in his embrace of Bush2′s Lunkhead foreign policy isn’t surprising to anyone who knows anything about Andrew Sullivan.
I’ve consistently been critical of his brand of so-called conservatism. He is, however, fairly influential and has shown the dangers of when died-in-the-wool liberals become hawkish. They carry over the stupidity of liberalism into all departments.
I have to question your reading comprehension if you read the above (or anything I’ve written about Sullivan) as homage.
You question his reading comprehension ability NOW? Goodness.
James,
He questioned it here previously as well:
http://tinyurl.com/jzkqg
I’m in near total agreement with you Chris, and certainly on your main point, to wit, that Sullivan is a hysterical immature twit, and that he is living down to stereotype.
That said, Sullivan is hardly a conservative, except perhaps on the Upper West Side or among the withered remanants of the Boston Brahmin social set. Neither is he some sort of massive cheerleader for “Bush’s War”. He careens wildly from one position to another on the conflicts in the Middle East. Just Google him in conjunction with James Taranto and you will see that I speak the truth.
Roach: “I have to question your reading comprehension if you read the above (or anything I’ve written about Sullivan) as homage.”
Roach, all I’m saying is it’s no surprise to anyone that Andrew Sullivan goes from this to that with the easy of a feather in the wind. He’s on freaking steroids!
All you are doing is stroking his “ego” by even mentioning him.