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.
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.
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.
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.
And just as I did in addressing your point at my site, I screwed it up. I meant to say, “we should have prosecuted…”
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Don’t. be. silly.
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.
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.
“…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ofcourse you do.
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.
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!
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.
I couldn’t find anything, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not there.
OTOH, one might think it would be, somewhere.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review