Comments on: None so blind

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:52:03 +0000

In a post full of equivocation and weasel words.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:58:48 +0000

I’m sure you all noticed, Sullivan apologized on his website.

By: libertas

libertas — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:34:52 +0000

The topic of discussion may be Sullivan, but the fact is that this is just another example of the rights use of 9/11 to duck any serious discussion. I’ve lost track of how many times when backed into a corner by their own mis-statements and lack of logic, BushCo and their lackie will pause and trot out, “Look, 9-11 changed everything,” and proceed to leap directly out of the rhetorical hole they dug for themselves. As subtantiation, try this.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:55:30 +0000

Point taken Jeffrey, but I don’t think Sullivan has a huge record of acting mendaciously. His Letters page is often full of brutal criticism, so he’s not out there trying to prove infallibility. He does however exaggerate, as was the case with the entry cited by Ted. As for his email, I do think its message was genuine: to the Bush people 9/11 was pivotal, and frankly any discussion of a shift to hard Wilsonianism deserves more than a sentence’s reference to that event. I sympathize with your view Jeffrey becuase I feel the same way about Noam Chomsky. People accord him fair and balanced reviews despite a systematic record of mendacity, just because they agree with him on a thing or two. I do not think that Andrew Sullivan shares that level of dishonesty. Nor do I think Paul Krugman, for that matter, shares that level of dishonesty. I think Sullivan has remained within “acceptable” levels of exaggeration, and his record of introspection makes evident the fact that he’s more a thinker than an ideologically imprisoned liar. So I’ll keep reading him, and I hope others do as well – if anything his right-wing commentary is far more thoughtful than that of most conservative talk show hosts.

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:34:46 +0000

It isn’t just the silly mistake, it’s the mendacious insistence—when the silly mistake is pointed out—that there was no mistake at all, that indeed he has been fully vindicated. Why is anybody who pulls this kind of crap entitled to respectful attention, even if you agree with some of his positions?

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:33:09 +0000

“I agree with Geoff that this “murderous frenzy” over a silly mistake is a bit disturbing. You’re showing yourselves to be quite more partisan than Sullivan is.” Tsk, tsk. Just like you to introduce a tone of reasonableness into what was shaping up to be a Sullivan-bashing bonanza. Shame on you!

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:38:40 +0000

I agree with Geoff that this “murderous frenzy” over a silly mistake is a bit disturbing. You’re showing yourselves to be quite more partisan than Sullivan is. In fact, I think a good number of you would actually agree with a basket of Sullivan’s views: he’s culurally liberal, fiscally conservative, and a foreign policy hawk. He doesn’t pull punches with the Bush administration. In my opinion he should be appreciated as a decent right-wing interlocuter; he’s sophisticated enough to question his own principles and does a fairly good job of rationally defending himself. You also seem to have a problem with his tendency to cull quotes from the leftist underground and flash them on his site to caricature the whole movement. True, he does do this, but he has in the past indicated that these views ONLY represent the leftist underground (a movement that defies the need for caricature) and not the mainstream left. And for those of you who questioned the existence (!) of rational right-wing commentary: you have fallen victim to dangerous reductive views of your opposition, and your aversion to critical thinking is transparent.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:44:20 +0000

My next post (probably) will look at the question “If Sully had said ‘barely a mention’ instead of ‘nary a mention’, would it be a fair critique of Marshall’s article?” You may not be surprised to hear that I think that the answer is “no”. Or, I’ll finish the review of the Mr. T Experience album. One or the other. By the way, it’s awfully nice to see you, Jeff!

By: Jeff Cooper

Jeff Cooper — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:38:45 +0000

Regrettably, Coulter hasn't disappeared. Why, just this week (as John Emerson notes), she made the shocking allegation that John Kerry (gasp!) marries other men's daughters!

By: marky

marky — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:38:48 +0000

Remember Ann Coulter? No.. well neither do I. No one talks about Coulter anymore, and in 6 months to a year no one will talk about Sully either.

By: raj

raj — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:14:20 +0000

“BTW, are we all so sure that Sully is a Republican? It was just last week that he commented on his blog, “Neither party provides a comfortable home for people like me.”” Sully has, for whatever reason (marketing purposes?) made himself into an apologist for the current administration. Notwithstanding the fact that the current administration has embarked on various courses that has aligned itself (actually more than aligned itself) with forces that rhetorically bash gay people.

By: Andrew BOucher

Andrew BOucher — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:36:14 +0000

Apologies, I really did think that “with nary a” meant “with hardly any” So Sully is wrong. Me too.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:27:24 +0000

George Bush said: a) Saddam has WMD so we must invade OR b) Saddam has no WMD so we must invade Only niggling syntax separates them…

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:17:28 +0000

Saying that Sullivan’s failing here is merely one of “syntax” is like saying Joe McCarthy had some “footnoting” problems. I suspect you would see the point if an anti-war spokesman declared there was “no mention” of Saddam Hussein’s human rights record in the Congressional resolution authorizing force, then—shown the passages which explicitly mentioned that human rights record—retorted “that’s exactly my point: it isn’t mentioned enough to be taken seriously.” It’s simply a lie in both cases to say “that was my point entirely.”

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:24:55 +0000

Really now. You might well have a cracking good argument against Sullivan, but you would be on stronger ground if you addressed his substantive point rather than niggled his syntax. To be clearer: I agree with you; Sullivan made his point quite inartfully. And I’m willing to believe that he may be wrong about his attack on Marshall’s piece. But his point is easily enough discerned, and your criticism just goes to his writing, not his thinking.