Jack O’Toole catches Andrew Sullivan assuming that his readers are too lazy or dumb to click a link.
Here’s Andrew Sullivan this morning on Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark:
Reading this essay by Wesley Clark, I have to say I’m not reassured that he has what it takes to wage a war on terror. If he had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place, let alone the war against Saddam. [Emph. added]
And what did Gen. Clark actually say in his essay about the war in Afghanistan?
Instead of cutting NATO out, we should have prosecuted the Afghan campaign with NATO, as we did in Kosovo. Of course, it would have been difficult to involve our allies early on, when we ourselves didn’t know what we wanted to do, or how to achieve it. The dialogue and discussions would have been vexing. But in the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership. [Emph. added]
Winston Churchill famously said that the truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.
It seems that much of the right, from George Will (here and here) to Andrew Sullivan to Rush Limbaugh, feels the same way about the Bush presidency.
UPDATE: Ogged points out:
But he’s not lying this time. His point, which he spends the bulk of his post arguing, is that “with NATO” is “probably” the same as “not at all.” That’s likely wrong: Clark doesn’t rule out going alone, he merely expresses his preference—but it’s not a lie.
Ehhhh… I see his point, but I dunno. Andrew is arguing that Clark wanted to hand over operational control, and sacrifice our ability to choose targets and tactics. Here’s Andrew:
Can you imagine having to get every special ops target in Afghanistan approved by 19 different countries, including those who opposed any action against the Taliban? Can you even begin to imagine constructing a case for any action in Iraq under similar auspices? It simply wouldn’t have happened.
Yes, that certainly sounds bad, but it bears no relation to the essay he’s talking about:
In the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership.
Both Andrew and Clark are speaking in hypotheticals, so the word “lie” is maybe a little harsh. Nonetheless, Clark has the facts on his side, and Andrew doesn’t. NATO was distinctly on our side in Afghanistan- they had called upon the common defense clause for the first time in history. (NATO is, of course, heavily involved in the current effort of policing Afganistan.) And who was it, again, that “opposed any action against the Taliban”?
European reaction to the US and British attacks on Afghanistan has so far been positive. France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all stated their support for the alliance…
In France, President Jacques Chirac has said that he will make French troops available to the alliance. Speaking in a televised address, President Chirac said that France had opened its airspace to the US military aircraft and French ships are providing logistical support to US naval forces in the Indian Ocean. However, the French President was adamant that this was as far as French participation would go.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi put his country on a state of alert following the strikes. However, he said that he supported the attack. “Italy is on the side of the United States and of all those who are committed to the fight against terrorism,” he said. He also pledged material help and troops if needed.
The German government has said that it supports “without reservation” the US-led attacks on “terrorist targets in Afghanistan”. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Germany will contribute to the action if they are asked and in line with their abilities.
Russia has also pledged its support for the attacks saying that international terrorism should face justice. A foreign ministry statement read on television said that the Taliban regime had become an “international centre of terrorism and extremism”. The statement concluded, “It is time for decisive action with this evil”.
Sullivan’s take seems ludicrous if you read the link or just remember the events of two years ago.
{ 30 comments }
ogged 09.19.03 at 4:25 pm
But he’s not lying this time. His point, which he spends the bulk of his post arguing, is that “with NATO” is “probably” the same as “not at all.” That’s likely wrong: Clark doesn’t rule out going alone, he merely expresses his preference–but it’s not a lie.
Scott Martens 09.19.03 at 4:26 pm
Isn’t NATO basically running the campaign in Afghanistan now? I had understood the Afghani campaign to be quite the opposite of Iraq, and that the current command in Kabul is German and Dutch. It seems to me there was some noise a while back about Afghanistan being NATO’s first campaign outside of Europe.
Jack O'Toole 09.19.03 at 4:46 pm
ogged,
I understand your point, but I just don’t see how the words “I would have prosecuted” can be reconciled with “probably would not have happened.” In this case, I think Sullivan pretty clearly crossed the line between fair commentary and misrepresentation.
Jack O'Toole 09.19.03 at 4:49 pm
And just as I did in addressing your point at my site, I screwed it up. I meant to say, “we should have prosecuted…”
Antoni Jaume 09.19.03 at 4:52 pm
IIRC after the 11 September 2001 attentate, NATO declared, without any US prompting, to be ready to help the USA. It was the USA who refused to do so.
DSW
Matt Weiner 09.19.03 at 4:53 pm
Respectfully, ogged, Sullivan is lying. If he had said, “Clark wanted to go through NATO, which would have meant war would never happen,” he would be honest. What Sullivan says is:
His first instinct after the deadliest act of war against the American heartland in history was to help the United Nations set up an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism. I’m not even making that up.
(And I didn’t make up that last sentence–Sully seems to admit that he makes things up other times.) In fact, you can’t tell from Sullivan’s post that Clark wanted to go through NATO, unless perhaps you know exactly how many members NATO has. And you sure as hell can’t tell that NATO had invoked Article V, thus committting itself to war against the perpetrators of the attack.
Also–it’s not laziness or stupidity–who has time to click every link they see? That’s why bloggers ought to strive to be trustworthy, and not distort what they link to.
phil 09.19.03 at 5:04 pm
I can imagine having to get every target approved by 19 countries because that’s exactly what Clark did in Kosovo. It’d be even easier in Afghanistan, which is so much farther away from Europe and where the various European nations don’t have much of a stake in what does or does not get bombed.
That’s difference between Clark and Bush: Clark would’ve gotten the job done and done right.
ogged 09.19.03 at 5:09 pm
I see Ted has posted an update. “Both Andrew and Clark are speaking in hypotheticals, so the word “lie†is maybe a little harsh.” Exactly. As for whether Sullivan was distorting Clark’s position and being generally mendacious, that goes without saying.
Ted H. 09.19.03 at 5:11 pm
Maybe this will seem fussy, but there’s an important difference between manifesting untrustworthiness and lying. Lying is only one way of manifesting untrustworthiness, and I don’t think it was Sullivan’s way here.
Sullivan was putting a very partisan spin on the article he linked to, knowing that many readers would not bother to read the article. But for this to count as lying (i.e. dishonesty) you have to imagine him intending that viewers not look at the article.
As I see it, Sullivan was being unfairly and irresponsibly partisan but not dishonest. Sullivan’s readers should absolutely not take him at his word — but not, again, because he’s generally dishonest. They should not take him at his word because he’s massively untrustworthy in other respects (e.g. relentlessly and often unfairly partisan, willfully simpleminded, and stubborn — not all entirely bad qualities in other respects).
Tom Maguire 09.19.03 at 7:16 pm
In a “no po-mo” tribute to ogged, I am going to re-post what I dropped on Jack.
I apologize in advance for not being a fire-breathing neo-con, or even an ardent Sully-supporter, but I am with ogged – saying Sully lied is a huge stretch.
This is the first response suggested by Clark:
Soon after September 11, without surrendering our right of self defense, we should have helped the United Nations create an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism. We could have taken advantage of the outpourings of shock, grief, and sympathy to forge a legal definition of terrorism and obtain the indictment of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban as war criminals charged with crimes against humanity. Had we done so, I believe we would have had greater legitimacy and won stronger support in the Islamic world. We could have used the increased legitimacy to raise pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to cut off fully the moral, religious, intellectual, and financial support to terrorism.
OK, he does say “without surrendering our right to self-defense”. But when, in the context of all these resolutions and indictments, do we actually go to war?
All of a sudden we skip to the paragraph you highlight, where “Instead of cutting NATO out, we should have prosecuted the Afghan campaign with NATO, as we did in Kosovo.”
But Clark says nothing about what might have triggered such a campaign. Bush, if you recall, negotiated with the Taliban for a while (Surrender Osama or Die!) What is Clark proposing? I think Sully could reasonably read Clark’s article as proposing months of UN wrangling followed by some lame IIC court order, sanctions, and what not. Then, having failed to win world backing, we could go to war! Well done.
From which it follows that Sully’s controversial opening, “If [Clark] had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place” is a reasonable opinion supported by the evidence Sully presents.
Now, you may disagree, but that hardly makes Sully a pathological liar.
Or, if you can find in Clark’s article some suggestion of just how his proposed UN process would lead to war, bring it up, and shut me up.
As an aside, it is sort of heartening to read Clark’s exhotations about building international consensus. Too bad the Brits and the Brass didn’t actually unite behind his consensus. But he at least talks about being a team player.
Have a great weekend.
Geo Wilson 09.19.03 at 10:34 pm
I’ve read all of these comments, as well as the Sullivan and Clark referenced documents. In my opinion, the last commenter, Mr. Maguire, has it exactly right. In the past I’ve spotted other blogs with sharply critical, in fact, downright nasty (and often personal) critiques of Andrew Sullivan’s writing, that upon further investigation usually prove to be factually in error. I understand that Mr. Sullivan is gay; am I witnessing a form of anti-gay or homophobic reaction?
Ophelia Benson 09.20.03 at 12:59 am
Don’t. be. silly.
Ayjay 09.20.03 at 3:14 am
Homophobia? Please. (It doesn’t get much sillier.)
Nevertheless, Ted’s post is just the sort of thing I normally go to Crooked Timber to avoid. I am sick and tired of right-wing blogs that decry left-wing “lies,” and left-wing blogs that decry right-wing “lies.” It’s as though Al Franken’s book title (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) has become the motto of the blogosphere. My eleven-year-old son has figured out that shouting “Liar” isn’t an argument; why can’t his elders reach a similar level of maturity? Ted does acknowledge the possibility that the charge of lying is overblown, for which I suppose I should be thankful; but I’m not, in part because much of the rest of his post is in the same vein. For instance, he wants to tell me what Andrew Sullivan’s opinion is of his readers (“Andrew Sullivan assuming that his readers are too lazy or dumb to click a link”). Gee, thanks for the mind-reading, Ted.
I was excited when, not long after it began, I discovered Crooked Timber precisely because most of the posts were reasonable, well thought-out, and argumentative in form. It seems to me that, as frustration with the Bush (and to a less dramatic extent the Blair) administration seems to mount among at least some of the contributors, the quality of the posts is noticeably declining. If I want sneers of contempt that eschew argument, well, Michael Moore and Ann Coulter have websites, and they’re much better sneerers than the CT crowd — after all, they have years of practice.
oneangryslav 09.20.03 at 5:55 am
Ayjay:
You make a good point about the blogosphere (and about current political discussion, more generally), but you then lose me when you equate Ann Coulter with Michael Moore. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is nobody-I repeat, nobody-on the left who is the equivalent of people like Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage, and Limbaugh. Once again, I am willing to be proven wrong.
Keith M Ellis 09.20.03 at 2:18 pm
“…nobody-on the left who is the equivalent of people like Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage, and Limbaugh…”
In what sense? Viciousness? In that regard, I think you’re correct, at least as far as well-known pundits are concerned. But aside from viciousness, I think in terms of mendaciousness and partisaniship, there’s certainly some people on the left who are at least somewhat comparable to your three right-wing examples.
Ted H. 09.20.03 at 4:01 pm
Since this thread has taken on the appearance of a exchange between Sullivan bashers and Sullivan-basher bashers, let me go on record that, despite my claim above that Sullivan is untrustworthy — though not dishonest (in any case I know) — as an expositor of others’ views, I often find his commentary insightful. (There’s no contradiction there.)
I too am sick of the ‘liar, liar’ trope that has now infected the left to the same extent as it infected the right in the Clinton years. Note this difference between Dole in ’96 and GWB in 2000: Dole ran a ‘Democrats lie’ campaign and Bush didn’t. We Dems don’t have a prayer of winning in ’04 unless we drop this silly rhetoric.
Julia Grey 09.20.03 at 4:51 pm
Note this difference between Dole in ‘96 and GWB in 2000: Dole ran a ‘Democrats lie’ campaign and Bush didn’t.
Bush didn’t have to because the PRESS did.
Thorley Winston 09.21.03 at 4:06 am
Quite a few actually – Michael Moore, Garrison Keillor, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Robert Sheer, Alan Dershowitz, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Jim Hightower, and I haven’t even touched most of Hollywood or the ever-forgettable writers/editors for The Nation.
Thorley Winston 09.21.03 at 4:12 am
One qualifier though, I categorically reject the notion that Rush Limbaugh would be anywhere near as vicious as the lot of leftist demagogues I’ve listed (although Savage and the post-9/11 Coulter certainly qualify). Limbaugh may be partisan, but on that score he’s more akin to a Paul Begala or James Carville with the difference being that Limgaugh is actually entertaining to listen to and doesn’t look like one of the patients from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
WillieStyle 09.21.03 at 6:38 am
Ofcourse you do.
Kristjan Wager 09.21.03 at 8:49 pm
Isn’t NATO basically running the campaign in Afghanistan now?
More or less, and several NATO countries have been involved from the start of the campaign. Among them Denmark, whom the US asked to supply elite troops (Jægerkorpset/the Hunters Corps especially). The Afghan police is also trained by European NATO countries, and the UN is heavily involved in removing land mines (it’s not that many months ago some German and Danish troops were killed while doing this duty).
A few days ago someone on BBC commented that one of the things that pisses France and Germany of, is that they are helping a lot in Afghanistan, and they still have to hear all the “Old Europe” crap, and listen to Bush’s retorics.
Tom Maguire 09.22.03 at 3:24 am
Well, as to the point about French and German troops in Afghanistan, we will give some props to the Germans (who are also big in Bosnia, IIRC).
The US has about 11,500 troops in Afghanistan under a separate command outside of Kabul; NATO just took over the role of ISAF, leading about 5,500 troops, of whom 548 are French.
File that under “BBC Accuracy”, and alert Andrew!
Kristjan Wager 09.22.03 at 6:22 am
Tom, when I read the article you linked to, I noticed:
At a ceremony held in Kabul, the Alliance formally assumed a leadership role in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a UN-mandated force tasked with helping provide security in and around Kabul.
I know for sure that Denmark has more than 49 troops in Afghanistan, so my guess would be that France has more than 548 troops as well. Like the US has more than the 100 troops that participate in the ISAF force.
There are other places than Kabul that NATO tries to protect.
Tom Maguire 09.22.03 at 11:32 am
I couldn’t find anything, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not there.
OTOH, one might think it would be, somewhere.
Tom Maguire 09.22.03 at 4:19 pm
And that said, if someone finds the a more impressive figure, please contact the French Embassy in NY. They have this:
-Afghanistan: France takes part in ISAF (539 French troops maintain the security of the Kabul airport and its environs). Only the United States, France and the United Kingdom are providing officer training for the new Afghan army.
Now, they also mention that they sent troops “to the region” during more active hostilities:
After the tragedy of September 11, France supported Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (some 5,500 French soldiers were deployed to the region).
France is the only country, alongside the United States, to have sent bombers to Afghanistan, from Kyrgyzstan and the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. French forces provide logistical support to the Afghan theater, transporting coalition troops and equipment with the assistance of French detachments stationed in Uzbekistan, and resupplying U.S. warships and U.S. Navy fighter planes.
I stand by whatis reported.
http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2003/france_us_facts_060603.asp
Kristjan Wager 09.22.03 at 10:33 pm
Well, Tom even if those numbers are correct, and I can’t see why the shouldn’t be (even if the Danish numbers are a little low), I can’t see why this should invalid the BBC observation that they are helping a lot in Afghanistan. There are other ways of helping than just by providing troops – for example:
French forces provide logistical support to the Afghan theater, transporting coalition troops and equipment with the assistance of French detachments stationed in Uzbekistan, and resupplying U.S. warships and U.S. Navy fighter planes.
Kristjan Wager 09.23.03 at 6:26 pm
Ok, I have checked up a little on the numbers, and I think I have found out why the Danish numbers, at least, are so low.
According to a guy I study with, who were wounded in Afghanistan while there as part of the Danish troops, many of the Danish troops in Afghanistan is not counted as soldiers in the statistics, as they either are doing “civilian jobs” (mine clearing etc.) or aren’t there (officially).
Given that many of the Danish troops there are from the Danish elite divisions, which always have a tendency to keep their current work secret, the last part is hardly surprising. As an example, I can mention that officially no Danish troops were involved in the land part of Desert Storm, even if someone (some SAS soldiers) took pictures of Danish elite soldiers there.
I haven’t got a clue if the French work at all in the same way.
Keith M Ellis 09.24.03 at 7:14 am
Thorley, if making fun of the “White House dog” while showing a photo of Chelsea Clinton doesn’t count as “vicious” to you, then you really and truly have ideological blinders on.
nameless 09.25.03 at 3:35 am
Sullivan is a contemptible hack and Limbaugh is a vile, hate spewing bigot. Along with Savage and Coulter, they are the lowest of the low. None on the left even closely compare.
nameless 09.25.03 at 3:35 am
Sullivan is a contemptible hack and Limbaugh is a vile, hate spewing bigot. Along with Savage and Coulter, they are the lowest of the low. None on the left even closely compares.
Comments on this entry are closed.