Comments on: They’ve lost Andrew Sullivan

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 14 May 2004 08:00:21 +0000

Here’s about another (could they ever stop) instance of Sullivan’s pathetic hypocrisy: http://www.alicublog.blogspot.com/2004_05_09_alicublog_archive.html#108446077542392707 Sully is indeed concerned with the Berg family. Not with the fact he might be offending them and their son’s memory by clamouring for the video to be shown. Respect of personal and family dignity is of course to be dismissed when there’s higher goals such as the war on terror (or a book to sell). He is disappointed that the Berg family is angry at the US government for detaining Nick for two weeks when he was about to leave Iraq last March, preventing him from coming home then releasing him without any protection into the hands of who knows. Yeah. How dare they expect accountability from a government when these terrorists are so wild? It’s so amazing, that after spending years making the charge that all Bush opponents equate the US with terrorists, Sullivan and like-minded people would do just that. For a higher cause, of course.

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 14 May 2004 07:40:29 +0000

Not to you, rajeev, to me, it does sound very very awkward to put it mildly. I don’t see by what logic there should be outrage at the fact the evening news are not broadcasting a full sadistic video made by terrorists precisely to the effect of being shown. When Sullivan and Limbaugh and nutty right-wingers happen to agree with Al Qaeda’s intentions to throw terroristic sadism and murder in our faces, well. What can you say? I’m also surprised all those folks (except for terrorists, of course) haven’t even been slightly bothered by the idea that the Berg family might not appreciate. Or Berg himself. You know, the idea of respecting the dignity of a person while dying? Is that one of those other things we can throw out in the name of the war on terror? And just what “grim but salutary” effect watching a horror film of a real horror that’s been alraedy amply described and documented and reported as top headline everywhere would have? Make people more mad at terrorists? Because… until now, everyone is not mad at terrorists at all, nah? We need to get people more outraged at al Qaeda, so that… they will go out in the streets and do what? try and spot al Qaeda members at the local drugstore? failing that, spot the nearest lookalike and do what? How does the Berg killing video relate to the reporting – and investigating – of the cases of torture which, unlike Al Qaeda’s tactics, are our responsibility? I don’t know. But ok. Let’s hand the fight against terrorism to the most eager and willing among TV audiences. Cos clearly, the police and military and intelligence are not good enough, cos they’re too professional and have too many rules to abide to. (Or they’re corrupt, ineffectual, liberals, whatever). We need a grassroot anti-terrorism reaction from people who can get genuinely mad and are not bound by professional codes or liberal concerns about laws. That’s not what Sullivan said. Of course. But it’s the kind of reasoning that often pops up from those who advocate the showing of the Berg video. And last question that bothers me is, why is it that, when Daniel Pearl was killed, no one (at media level at least) was clamouring so hard for the video to be shown? A year later, and we’re all a step closer to the terrorist mentality that we end up acquiescing with their intent in making those videos in the first place? Isn’t that striking? No one even objected to the editing out of the sequences were people were jumping off the Twin Towers, as far as I recall. Everyone, or almost everyone, accepted and understood the reason why it was disrespectful to show that. Sorry for all these unrelated thoughts, but, I’m just wondering what happened to a lot of ideas that were supposed to make the values of democratic institutions and citizens different from the ideology and ideological tactics of terrorist organizations.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Fri, 14 May 2004 01:38:07 +0000

Well, I think the difference is right there in what you said: Sullivan is outraged by both the prison torture and the the Nick Berg execution, and wants both to be graphically displayed. Nutty right-wingers agree with him on the Nick Berg issue, but want to downplay, trivialize, and rationalize American torture. Sullivan wants even coverage of both sickening issues; nutty right-wingers do not. I don’t see any hypocrisy in Sullivan’s position. Just because he agrees with nutty right-wingers—on such issues as al Qaeda and the so-called “liberal media”—doesn’t mean he’s a hypocrite when he criticizes those same right-wingers for ignoring the faults of the US.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 18:37:51 +0000

rajeev: fair enough, we’ll agree to disagree on Sullivan. Different drugs for different people, or something like that. It’s funny though, cos what you just posted from Sullivan’s blog, is another of the items that make me go “the chutzpah this guy has”. One minute he’s frustrated he hasn’t seen the Berg killing video and accuses the media of double standards in not wanting to show it. Which clearly shows a line of reasoning not too dissimilar from the right-wing nuts who also made the very same comments about the media not wanting us to see how bad AQ is, and how that video puts things into perspective, etc. And then he goes and points the finger at those very nutters he was joining just a few hours before! You know, the only question is, is it a case of denial rather than calculated hypocrisy and cynicism? Hard to tell, when fame and money enter the picture.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 18:26:21 +0000

OK, so maybe I’m not through defending him. I just checked out his site and found this: THE RIGHT-WING UNHINGED: Tim Noah collects a few of the more nutty far right attempts to explain away, ignore or just duck the issue of Abu Ghraib. No surprise that the religious right is well represented. But none goes as low as National Review’s John Derbyshire. Clearly he’s not trying to make Abu Ghraib “irrelevent”—as you say—if he’s devoting space to criticizing the right’s attempt to trivialize it. He often does lambast the right, which is one reason I appreciate his thinking.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 18:09:47 +0000

I’m through defending Sullivan—I think I’ve said what I needed to about him. I disagree with his stance on Nick Berg, but he is nevertheless capable of keen insight if you wade through much of the sensationalist rhetoric. He speaks eloquently for many who are caught between the current political divide: those who are hawkish on foreign policy, yet more liberal on social and cultural fronts. I’m interested that you say this: Really? I think trying to categorize anyone is the last thing one needs to do, ever. Especially people who disagree. Especially on politics. Certainly it’s important to be careful with categorizing. Those who are not end up calling all anti-war protestors “soft on fascism” without realizing there’s a significant difference between, say, Tariq Ali and John Mearsheimer, both of whom opposed the war, the latter for more sound reasons than the former. By categorize I don’t mean you throw someone’s views in a little box and disregard all else they say; what I mean is you put them in general camps. The pro-war movement consisted of liberal interventionists, WMD hawks, and others. The anti-war movement was also a motley crew: some felt Bush was incompetent, some felt Iraq was an economically motivated oil grab, some thought any intervention would amount to a disaster, and a few actually were soft on fascism. They were distinct viewpoints which Sullivan too often conflated.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 15:49:14 +0000

dear rajeev, you write: When you end up thinking someone is both a sycophant and not a sycophant it means you’re barking up the wrong tree. Er, no, I was being sarcastic about him being both things at the same time. I was referring to his ability to adapt his sycophancy to whatever direction the current pulse of his audience seems to be pointing at. See above quoted passages from latest posts. Sullivan’s problem is not that he worships Bush No, indeed. His problem is that he's a despicable and hysterical propagandist. There you go. Does that make it simpler? I hold that one of the most important traits that a political writer must have is the ability to properly categorize those who dissent from him/her. Really? I think trying to categorize anyone is the last thing one needs to do, ever. Especially people who disagree. Especially on politics. Sullivan has failed in this regard in favor of weighty rhetoric. And insane pleas to the media to join in his craving to watch an Al Qaeda video where a poor man is killed. It should be broadcast on the evening news. So that even his family can see it. Because until they and we have all seen it uncut, in full, over and over, we just do not know how bad Al Qaeda really is. Or how relatively irrelevant Abu Ghraib is. In the grand scheme of things. Armageddon. Bring it on. Enough with double standards. Iraqis are terrorists and beheaders too. It must be seen. So that we can get into the warped sick minds of Al Qaeda, and feel the full extent of their insanity. It surely seems to work for some... For that reason I understand why you’re upset at him. I'm not the one who sounds upset, judging from Andrew's latest contributions to his weblog pages. But that doesn’t make him a Bush sycophant per se. You're right. Sycophant is too elegant a word.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 15:30:34 +0000

sorry to keep piling up, but I just checked your man’s website and had to stop at this before I threw up:

Let’s start an internet campaign to insist that the major media – including the New Yorker, the networks, the major newsweeklies, and every major paper – run a picture of Zarqawi holding up Nick Berg’s severed head. It’s time to release the Pearl video and stills too. Enough with the double standards.

Let’s treat Al Qaeda and the Bush administration as institutions of equal standing and with equal degrees of legality and accountability, is that what he’s saying? Noooo…

The media were absolutely right to show the abuse photos. But they are only part of the story. It’s about time the media gave us all of it, however harrowing it is.

So after a brief stunt of pretending to be outraged only because the Abu Ghraib photos were out, he smelled the wind again and saw it blew in the direction of Werenotasbadandthisiswhatwereupagainstshire, and saw it was a good thing.

WHERE IS THE WEBSITE? The mainstream media is driving me bonkers. They keep referring to an al Qaeda website that carries the video of the beheading of Nick Berg. But they won’t tell us the name of the website! Not only will they not show what al Qaeda really is, they won’t even allow us to know how to find it. If anyone out there has a link, please let me know. We can get around the Washington Post, which has a “slideshow” of American abuse but won’t even provide a link to the horrors perpetrated by the enemy.

So, dear Sullivan readers, you are now informed, that you do not know what al Qaeda really is, until you download a video of a decapitation. 9/11? Bali? Madrid? Morocco? the world already forgot! we need more atrocities to remind us. they have a “grim but salutary effect”. I don’t have the stomach to read further. It’s not a case of the Bush camp losing Sullivan (for about three days only). More of a case of Sullivan losing his mind completely. Sad fact is, he’s not alone.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 15:21:15 +0000

Pepi, I think we can reach some agreement on this one. When you end up thinking someone is both a sycophant and not a sycophant it means you’re barking up the wrong tree. Sullivan’s problem is not that he worships Bush—far from it, as my examples showed. His problem is that he conflates the radical left with the soft left, and in doing so trivializes the valid arguments of the latter. This is why the whole incompetency argument got overshadowed beneath a debate between the right and the radical left over liberation or fascism. Your snippets above show this well. I hold that one of the most important traits that a political writer must have is the ability to properly categorize those who dissent from him/her. Sullivan has failed in this regard in favor of weighty rhetoric. For that reason I understand why you’re upset at him. But that doesn’t make him a Bush sycophant per se.

By: CincyDemo

CincyDemo — Thu, 13 May 2004 14:38:13 +0000

What Sullivan is saying is that he believed in an impossible vision: Bush’s so-called democratic imperium, where slaves embrace their masters. Bush’s failed Iraq war proves (one could even say empirically) that no amount of money, bombs and blood can produce their impossible vision. Bush is still in denial about this, but what’s Sullivan’s reaction? He renounces his hero instead of their tragic vision. Outside of Sullivan’s own personal S&M fantasy world, slaves never willingly embrace their cruel masters. That’s the reason why one of the halves even comic book fantasy S&M scenes has to bring along his credit card. It takes the skills of a paid professional actor trick even a willing rube into buying the fantasy. But I have the feeling Sullivan’s known that for a long, long time.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 08:44:01 +0000

rajeev: well, I guess Andrew Sullivan has been such an expert at sneaking in and out of any possible position at the most convenient of times that he might have been both sycophantic, and not sycophantic, depending on the date or passage quoted. But he was explicitely urging for support for Bush because – despite his gay marriage stance, Christian right freak friends, poor delivery of speeches, poor management of international relations, poor management of taxes, and anything else you may find in the andrewsullivan.com archive – he thought Bush was the one and only to guarantee toughness against the “Islamofascists”. All those despite’s were dismissed by that kind of absolute faith that, in the war on terror, after 9/11, this was the right man, the right administration. Fair enough! That’s ok! that’s a legitimate position as any. But point is, Sullivan did not think there were any other legitimate positions at all. He is now coming up with a one-line apology to the very criticism of the Bush policy on terrorism that he so grossly dismissed, and not just that, but also painted with large brushes as being anti-american, pro-islamofascist, a threat to the western civilisation, and so on… Yourself, rajeev, did acknowledge he dismissed “so trivially” a rather big argument. I happen to think he also dismissed his own acknowledgement of that very trivially. You can’t spend four years and hundreds of paragraphs deriding anyone who criticises Bush on anti-terrorism and then just, oops, sorry, there were actually solid reasons for perplexity there. That’s not “changing your mind”. That’s sweeping under the rug a rather bad case of sycophancy on your part. Yes, sycophancy. What else is it, when you write things like this:

…the loathed president Bush performed quite well in the aftermath, won a war and saw his ratings jump. Patriotism – the display of which nauseates large parts of the left-wing intelligentsia – proliferated from suburb to inner city. Military budgets went up – and presidential speeches became rallying cries again. And all this happened just when the left was licking its chops at the prospect of eviscerating a man they regarded as an illegitimate, unelected, moronic puppet of evil corporate interests.

Here’s the “opposition to Bush = American-haters” pearl:

Some left-wingers went under-cover; others blurted out what they truly felt – that America deserved to get bloodied – only to find public derision and dismay so intense they retreated to their bunkers. (Yes, Ms. Sontag, that includes you.) And then a happy few decided – what the hell? – that with little to lose, they might as well go even further in their opposition and not only call Bush illegitimate, but the entire war on terror a convenient excuse to ratchet up defense spending, rape the environment, and give Donald Rumsfeld the political version of a Viagra.

He spent YEARS writing this crap in the most rhetorical language, ugly even by speech-writing standards. Now one-line of half-assed apology should be enough to what, pretend he never wrote any of that? And since he wrote this:

Before the war, it was inexcusable but not that damning for the mainstream left merely to ignore the rabid, immoral anti-American rhetoric of some of their allies. But during a war, ignoring it is no longer an option. In fact, the mainstream left has a current obligation to declare its renunciation of what amounts to a grotesque moral inversion, to disavow the sentiments that were cheered at Columbia University.

Shouldn’t he be asking the right to overtly disown the statements of Mr “true American patriot” Rush Limbaugh, and assume, in the absence of a public denounciation, that those ideas Limbaugh expressed on torture are, like he says, what the whole right and the President himself thinks too but can’t say in public?

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 01:40:30 +0000

Pepi: Andrew Sullivan has not been sycophantic about the Bush administration on Iraq. Again and again and again he has derided Bush and Rumsfeld for their troop mismanagement, their failure to focus on the ideological aspects of the war, the torture scandals, their actions in Fallujah, their election strategies, and more. He has linked to scores of critiques of America’s performance in Iraq as well—the Paul Berman critique written a few months ago for the NY Times comes to mind. I just don’t see where you’re coming from Pepi; if it was up to me, more conservative writers would be as flexible and thoughtful as Sullivan.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 12 May 2004 20:46:44 +0000

What is Sullivan saying that is any different from what Kerry says? Bush F’d it up. The cause was just, but Bush didn’t have what it takes to stear the ship properly. Sullivan had no more faith in Bush’s ability than Kerry himself. I’m not sure if this is an argument for a Kerry president or not. I’ll probably vote for him, but just barely.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 17:41:08 +0000

No, only Andrew Sullivan.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 12 May 2004 17:37:27 +0000

“Rajeev, you ask, where do I get off calling Sullivan a paid PR man. Well let me ask you in turn: doesn’t Sullivan a) get paid and b) write for the Washington Times? I rest my case…” Is everyone who gets paid to write for a newspaper a paid PR man, or only people you don’t like who write for newspapers you don’t like?