I stopped going to Andrew's blog after 2 years of visiting his site on a daily basis.

I guess I don't trust him anymore.

In the movie Shrek 2, the Giant Gingerbread Man attacks a "Farbucks" coffee house, causing the occupants to run screaming out ... and into another "Farbucks" across the street.

I have no idea how this is symbolic with your analogy.

I guess I don't trust him anymore.

I dont care if he's right or left. He's gay, and that's where he's coming from. If that trumps everything for him, then he doesn't deserve your trust (unless of course you also think that gay is the only thing that matters).

CIA: Difficulties lie ahead for Iraq
Douglas Jehl, New York Times
December 7, 2004 CIA1207

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5123283.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A classified cable sent by the CIA's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.

The cable, sent late last month as the officer ended a yearlong tour of duty, presented a bleak assessment on matters of politics, economics and security, the officials said. They said its basic conclusions had been echoed in recent briefings to top government officials by a senior CIA officer who recently returned Iraq.

The officials described the two assessments as having been "mixed," saying that they did describe Iraq as having made important progress, particularly in terms of its political process, and credited Iraqis with being resilient.

Yet overall, the officials described the station chief's cable in particular as an unvarnished assessment of the difficulties ahead in Iraq. They said it warned that the security situation was likely to get worse, bringing more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon in the ability of the Iraqi government to assert authority and build the economy.

Together, the appraisals, which follow several other such warnings from officials in Washington and in the field, were much more pessimistic than the public picture being offered by the Bush administration before the elections scheduled for Iraq Jan. 30, the officials said.

The cable was sent to CIA headquarters after U.S. forces completed what military commanders have described as a significant victory -- the retaking of Fallujah, a principal base of the Iraqi insurgency, in mid-November.

Too harsh

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, was said by the officials to have filed a written dissent, objecting to one finding as too harsh, on the ground that the United States had made more progress than was described in fighting the Iraqi insurgency. But the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey Jr., also reviewed the cable and did not dispute its conclusions, the officials said.

The station chief's cable has been widely disseminated outside the CIA, and was initially described by a government official who read the document and who praised it as unusually candid. Other government officials who have read or been briefed on the document later described its contents. The officials refused to be identified by name or affiliation because of the delicacy of the issue. The station chief cannot be publicly identified because he continues to work undercover.

Asked about the cable, White House spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not discuss intelligence matters. A CIA spokesman would say only that he could not comment on any classified document.

It was not clear how the White House was responding to the station chief's cable. In recent months, some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have accused the CIA of seeking to undermine Bush by disclosing intelligence reports whose conclusions contradict the administration or its policies.

One government official said the new assessments might suggest that Porter J. Goss, the new director of central intelligence, was willing to listen to views different from those publicly expressed by the administration.

A separate, more formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) prepared in July and sent to the White House in August by U.S. intelligence agencies also presented a dark forecast for Iraq's future through the end of 2005. Among three possible developments described in that document, the best case was tenuous stability and the worst case included a chain of events leading to civil war.

After news reports disclosed the existence of the NIE, which also remains classified, Bush initially dismissed the conclusions as a guess. Since then, however, violence in Iraq has increased, including the recent formation of a Shiite militia intended to carry out attacks on Sunni militants.

The end-of-tour cable from the station chief, spelling out an assessment of the situation on the ground, is a less formal than a NIE. But it was drafted by an officer who is highly regarded within the CIA and who as Baghdad station chief has been the top U.S. intelligence official in Iraq since December 2003. The station chief oversees an intelligence operation that includes about 300 people, making Baghdad the largest CIA station since the wartime post in Saigon, Vietnam.

'Honest portrayal'

The senior CIA official who visited Iraq and then briefed counterparts from other government agencies was Michael Kostiw, a senior adviser to Goss. One government official who knew about Kostiw's briefings described them as "an honest portrayal of the situation on the ground."

Since they took office in September, Goss and his aides have sought to discourage unauthorized disclosures of information. In a memorandum sent to CIA employees last month, Goss said the job of the intelligence agency was to "provide the intelligence as we see it" but also to "support the administration and its policies in our work."

While Andrew is surely gay as David relates(again),that,in itself,does not make Andrew the Most Annoying blogger.
What makes Andrew the Most Annoying is Andrew.
Whiny
Shrill
Hysterical
Panicky
And last but not least--- Willing at any time to reverse course on ANYTHING in his heedless pursuit of GAYNESS
I stopped reading him when I realised that his genitals came,and ALWAYS would come, way ahead of the demands of his world vision.

Clyde, the form of your "comment" was rude. Most of us will follow a link if we read an informative and interesting summary as part of a succinct comment.

Cut and paste is just lazy, and it's also counterproductive; when I see it done I assume the commenter is a wanking wingnut and anything they're interested in, I probably ain't.

And it's off topic! Get a grip. Or loosen it up, considering the wanking angle.

Andrew is an excellent writer. That he annoys the right more then the left is no surprise given his political position. I still read him daily, might not always agree with his pov but still a great read. If you can't get past the fact that he's gay and advocates for gay rights it says more about you then him.

"And it's off topic! Get a grip. Or loosen it up, considering the wanking angle"--MP

LOL

Back on topic, I used to be a huge fan of Andrew Sullivan, but I went cold on him when I perceived linkage between his views on the Iraq War and Bush's position on Gay marriage. Nothing to call it but intellectual dishonesty. I don't know if his switch was a calculated bit of politics or if the intensity of his feelings about Gay marriage warped his perspectives, but either way I no longer trustes his analyses.

On anything not-Bush, he's still brilliant. But that cuts out a lot of his content, and I only go there occasionally these days. (On the other hand, as a reliably Bush-bashing figure on the "Right", the ABB crowd must flock to him now like racists to a minstrel show, to be as politically incorrect as possible. My guess is that explains his increased traffic.)

I used to read his blog daily. No matter his opinion, I always liked seeing what he had to say.

That ended when he reversed course immediately. I no longer have any interest in what he has to say.

He seemed to turn on Bush pretty fast when he found out Saddam was for gay marriage.

"Saddam was for gay marriage"

isn't that the real reason Bush went to war?

by the way, i've never read Andrew Sullivan's blog

but why does the fact he's gay have any relevance???

maybe you're a follower of the "man of God" Reverand Jerry Falwell

I personally don't care if he is gay...hence why I find him so boring to read.

I owe a debt to Andrew. He was a breath of fresh air for me, a newly-minted post 9/11 conservative gay man. (The conservative thing was new, the gay has been out there for ages). I read his column every day for a couple of years. Even went and read his books. The fact that so many of my gay brethren loathe him gave it all a kind of transgressive thrill.

My first "hiatus" was when he got stuck on Abu Graibh and Gibson's Passion, at the same time. I couldn't take what felt like daily obsessive moralizing. It seemed all out of proportion.

But I came back later, and read with dismay as he finally decided to vote for Kerry. Now I can speculate as to what his motives finally were (as do many on this comment list and elsewhere), but they are irrelevant guesses. His reasons, and reasons are what are available to us, were that Bush and Co. were not sufficiently serious in prosecuting the war in Iraq, that they were hopeless spendthrifts, that they never seemed to take responsibility for mistakes and that they wanted to enshrine what he saw as discrimination in the Constitution. As much as I was viscerally repulsed at the thought of my erstwhile homocon hero pulling the lever for Jean Francois, I recognized his points.

I voted for W, despite his very unfortunate Constitutional gambit, because I think the war with Islam transcends all other issues. And though his prosecution of the occupation has sometimes sorely tried me, it seemed to me that Kerry was a pathetic alternative. To vote for him would have given aid and comfort to the likes of Michael Moore and would have demoralized out troops, who were overwhelmingly in favor of W continuing.

But post-election, I am much more aware of what feels to me like AS' obsessive moralizing. And my sense of proportion is, shall we say, at variance with Andrew's. I still skim his blog every day, but with lower expectations. He's a hero no more, now that, as we say in the shrink trade, "my projections have been withdrawn". But I resist the "Once Hero Now Villain" scenario. Sometimes he has good things to say, often I am either uninterested or unimpressed.

It's no easy path to trod, being gay and a conservative. Believe me, it's given me a whole encore experience of being in the closet. It's wearing to know that most people who share your erotic sense of the world think you are a traitor and many people who share your political sense of the world think you are a moral freak.
People who would never castigate a Jew for making Israel the touchstone for his politics will happily dismiss Andrew's prioritizing of his gayness as being "led by his gonads", as if he were some adolescent in heat. I think that maybe Andrew gets worn out by it all.

Perhaps he will one day re-configure his blog into something like the form that made me a daily reader and a supporter. I hope so.

EssEm, great comment.

Andrew Sullivan is a liar, pure and simple. It is obvious to everyone with a brain that he voted against Bush (not FOR Kerry) because he perceived that Kerry was more favorable to the gay agenda. People do not believe Andrew Sullivan when he says otherwise. And his incessive moralizing about how all Republicans are EVIL and BIGOTS, etc, etc, etc, has shown his true colors, so to speak. He really only gets angry when people don't accept his radical gay agenda, and he gets even angrier when people point how how extreme in the minority he is.

Following RWN's links, I took a look at Sullivan's blog yesterday. Yikes. Every other word was about how Republicans are evil, how they're practically Nazis, because they don't bow down to the altar of homosexuality. It's not hard to conclude that he has lost his marbles.

Pretty sure British subjects don't get to vote here.

I guess reading Andrew Sullivan is a guilty pleasure that dare not be admitted in public. Practically everyone left and right says they hate him, but his traffic is way higher than almost everyone else's. A lot of people read his blog. Am I the only one who "admits" it? Sheesh.

I read Andrew. Marvelous writer. Less marvelous thinker. The wordsmithing alone makes him worthwhile.

Clyde, if you haven't read the guy do so before making a fool of yourself again. Much of his writing is driven by/relates to his sexuality.

Hated by both the left and the right? -- Sounds like good credentials to me.

Hmmm...people insist that when Sullivan is criticizing Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility (Sullivan is an old-fashioned conservative opposed to both high taxation AND budget deficits), or when he criticizes the Administration for their mistakes in Iraq -- that he is really only upset about...gay marriage? Any evidence that this is so? Any evidence that his comments on Iraq and the federal budget don't instead have something to do with, say...a dispassionate analysis of what is really going on in Iraq, and a dispassionate look at the fiscal train wreck this Republican president and Republican congress are hell bent not addressing???

Sullivan is basically your classic hawk-leaning, libertarian-leaning "log-cabin Republican" -- I'm amazed anyone would deny this.

Markus,

It's not for nothing that no one believe Andrew anymore. His timing about when he said he'd support Kerry, leading people to believe he was still considering voting for Bush when he really wasn't, was a big clue. Another is the fact that his tone about Republicans being evil and bigoted just because they don't subscribe to the radical homosexual agenda. He doesn't use language like that to describe people who cut off the heads of Westerners.

I don't know if his comments on the federal budget stem from his obsession with homosexuality, but his criticism of the war and his subsequent support for cut-and-run Kerry was so obviously a mask for his anger with Bush over the FMA that it's not surprising that people don't like Sullivan anymore.

Go ahead and continue to read him, if you like. I have no interest in listening to a whiny, harping liar.

"...a dispassionate analysis of what is really going on in Iraq, and a dispassionate look at the fiscal train wreck this Republican president and Republican congress are hell bent not addressing???"

guess i'll have to stay on topic -

"...We are losing the war in Iraq. There has been a steady increase in the assaults carried out by the insurgents against coalition forces. The attacks over the past year have risen from about twenty a day to approximately 120. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are tyrants to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens' expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront our hubris and the lies told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, we will not so much defeat dictators like Saddam Hussein as become them."

Chris Hedges

—November 17, 2004

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17630

Chris Hedges a reporter for The New York Times, was a war correspondent for nearly two decades in Central America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans. He is the author of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. His new book, Losing Moses on the Freeway: America's Broken Covenant with the Ten Commandments,will be published in June 2005. (December 2004)

Sydney -- what it sounds like what you have no interest in reading is written material that challenges your current assumptions and worldview. Me, I find it more fun and profitable to read and argue with thoughtful conservatives and others whom I'm inclined to disagree with, rather than read stuff by people whom I already more or less agree with.

Each to his own, I guess.

Practically everyone left and right says they hate him, but his traffic is way higher than almost everyone else's. A lot of people read his blog. Am I the only one who "admits" it? Sheesh.

I can't stand the guy. He's second from the top of my blogroll, and I read him every day.

Michael,

I was a judge for the RWN contest, and actually voted for Andrew Sullivan in both catagories. My reasoning was that depending on what side of the bed Andrew wakes up on, he could be either a liberal or a conservative. And he is definitely annoying.

Don't get me wrong, I read his blog and like it; Andrew has some good insights but he can be real annoying. His obvious double dealing and misleading on which candidate he would support, his turn on a dime drop of support for Iraq, his misrepresentation of President Bush as a Right Wing Gay Basher, etc. gets under your skin after a while.

but why does the fact he's gay have any relevance???

Because it's boring if you don't have a personal interest. I don't buy Low Rider magazine, either. On top of that, his preoccupation causes him to rationalize his positions and look silly, so I can't trust his reasoning. He also seems remarkably unaware of himself while at the same coming across as quite self centered. It all gets old.

Count me as one that is convinced that Andrew 'changed stripes' regarding Bush and Iraq due to the gay marriage ammendment issue. It's difficult to argue, though, with those that take the opposite view. But for those formerly avid Andrew readers, like me, the metamorphis was stunning: in a matter of weeks Iraq went from being a half full glass to not half empty but completely empty. If you weren't 'there' it's going to be difficult to convince you of this belief.

Another strike against Andrew is that he migrated to the 'the Iraq war was a good idea but Bush botched it' camp not too long after criticizing, rightly imo, that position. It's far too convenient for someone to 'own' the war when it's going well only to 'disown' the war down the road when it's going badly. Personally I am embarrassed for those that try to make the case for this while carefully avoiding the obvious fact that it's so damned self serving.

Sydney Carton: He doesn't use language like that to describe people who cut off the heads of Westerners.

That is complete and utter HORSE SHIT.

You obviously never read him, so stop pretending that you do.

He doesn't use language like that to describe people who cut off the heads of Westerners.

That's really not at all true -- if Andrew Sullivan has a flaw, it's that he overfocuses on the atrocities of fundamentalist Islam so much that it took him forever to figure out that the Republican Party loathes a class of people to which he belongs.

I am with Michael on this one. One thing Andrew has railed against is the brutality of the Islamofascists. This has not changed.

Michael,

I am interested in your take on Andrew's sudden drop of support for Iraq and its timing with President Bush's support of the gay marriage amendment. Like others that have commented here, it stuck me as very superficial, and is perhaps the main reason I classified him as 'anoying'.

Bill,

Andrew railed against Republican excess and incompetence for years. The gay marriage amendment was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Read his archives from two years ago. Why do you think most disgruntled liberals liked him so much? He has never been a party-line Republican.

The gay marriage amendment didn't cause Andrew to flip. It was the last in a long list of things that caused Andrew to flip.

if Andrew Sullivan has a flaw, it's that he overfocuses on the atrocities of fundamentalist Islam so much that it took him forever to figure out that the Republican Party loathes a class of people to which he belongs.

• You're painting with a pretty broad brush there. Nobody asked me if I hated gays before they let me register Republican. (For what it's worth, I don't.)
• Which is the greater threat to Enlightenmenr Culture: Islamofascism or the FMA?

Michael,

I haven't read him since the Democratic convention. Before then, I used to read him daily. I have a serious suspicion that his daily readership has vastly dropped around that time.

I don't read Sullivan anymore for two reasons:

1) Aesthetic - he has become so whiney, wishy-washy, egotistical, judgemental and hysterical that it is embarressing to read.

2) His shameless "politicking" where ever the donation-funding wind blows makes him boringly predictable. Pretty lame for a self-proclaimed "contrarian" blog.

His gayness is only a factor for me only in regard to above.

People who would never castigate a Jew for making Israel the touchstone for his politics will happily dismiss Andrew's prioritizing of his gayness as being "led by his gonads", as if he were some adolescent in heat.

Very well-said.

I guess reading Andrew Sullivan is a guilty pleasure that dare not be admitted in public. Practically everyone left and right says they hate him, but his traffic is way higher than almost everyone else's.

I don't think it's a left/right issue - it's whether a person is interested in honest and intelligent reflection or only wants to hear views and arguments that support their "side". If the former, then Andrew Sullivan is going to be everyday reading. If the latter, well, there is not shortage of alternatives.

Which is the greater threat to Enlightenmenr Culture: Islamofascism or the FMA?

In America: easily the FMA. Islamofacism only poses a cultural threat in the indirect sense that the threat of terrorist violence appears to have made people willing to destroy aspects of their own culture because they believe it makes them physically safer.

Mork: Islamofacism only poses a cultural threat in the indirect sense that the threat of terrorist violence appears to have made people willing to destroy aspects of their own culture because they believe it makes them physically safer.

For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and agree.

Now, what will happen if Al Qaeda nukes Manhattan? Will the resulting cultural carnage be harsher than the FMA? If so, will you only blame Americans for it? Or will there be plenty of blame to go around?

Andrew who?

Michael - the question was about a threat to American culture, not security.

I don't understand the point of your last two questions, unless you are attempting to smear me as a person who "blames America" for Islamic violence. If so, two quick responses: the moral equation is always clear - the terrorists are to blame. However, as a pure matter of cause and effect, American actions can make terrorism more or less likely. Only stupid, lazy or mischevious people would try to suggest that it is not possible to analyze the latter without diluting the moral clarity of the former.

People who would never castigate a Jew for making Israel the touchstone for his politics will happily dismiss Andrew's prioritizing of his gayness as being "led by his gonads", as if he were some adolescent in heat.

Very well said, but bull.

Most of these people whom you claim would never castigate a Jew for making Israel the touchstone of their politics don't do so because we see the interests and values of both countries as running parrallel.

But if said jew turned on the U.S. (like Sullivan turned on a dime with Bush) because of his pro-Israel touchstone, then you'd see just as much if not more criticism of that jew. Happily, I don't foresee the likelihood of this happenning.

Sullivan turned a dime because gay got to him. He's lost all credibility on anything but gay.

Mork: the question was about a threat to American culture, not security.

I know. But if you don't like the Patriot Act, you really won't like what follows a nuclear blast. That was my point.

unless you are attempting to smear me as a person who "blames America" for Islamic violence

No, I'm well aware you aren't that kind of person. It seemed to me you hadn't thought out what you were saying very well if you think the FMA really threatens American culture more than Islamism because Islamism only makes us "destroy aspects of our own culture."

Michael - I'm not sure we're disagreeing on anything other than what the question is - I'm talking about culture in an isolated sense and pointing out that it's more likely our fear of terrorism will lead us to voluntarily shed aspects of "enlightenment culture" (to use the phrase that prompted the discussion) than that Islamacists will succeed in forcing us to abandon any of the values they object to.

You seem to be taking the question somewhat more broadly, as in "which set of consequences would be worse". Which is fine, but it's a silly argument to have in any case unless you weight the likely consequences by their probability. Personally, I'd place a probability of close to zero (though growing) on Islamicists detonating a nuclear weapon in the United States, while I'd place a probablity of close to 1 on American fundamentalists succeeding in reducing citizens' freedoms during the next four years.

And, BTW, the Patriot Act (of which I only have certain specific criticisms) kind of pales into insignificance as a threat to our values when you compare it to the government establishing an entire parallel justice system that permits indefinite arbitrary detention and the use of evidence extracted through torture and where judicial power is exercised by government bureaucrats.

Now that is winding back enlightenment culture ... all the way back to the Magna Carta.

Islamofacism only poses a cultural threat in the indirect sense that the threat of terrorist violence appears to have made people willing to destroy aspects of their own culture because they believe it makes them physically safer.

This is, in some ways, true. In Britain, fear of offending Muslims (and of breaking the law) is keeping writers and comedians from making jokes about religion. Fear of local, Wahhabi-funded ‘radical’ Imams has kept many moderate Muslims in America from protesting threats made against them.

The Muslim Brotherhood sponsors a Muslim Youth organization that has branches in colleges around America. If you were an artist studying in one of these colleges, would you feel safer painting a portrayal of Bush - or Mohammed - as a chimp?

David wrote: "But if said jew turned on the U.S. (like Sullivan turned on a dime with Bush) because of his pro-Israel touchstone, then you'd see just as much if not more criticism of that jew."

Bad analogy, David (and capitalization). Turning on the USA and turning on a President or presidential candidate are vastly different things. The former is disloyal and might even be treasonous, the latter is everyday exercise of basic American rights.

Bad analogy, David (and capitalization). Turning on the USA and turning on a President or presidential candidate are vastly different things. The former is disloyal and might even be treasonous, the latter is everyday exercise of basic American rights.

EssEm,

I agree, it's a terrible analogy. But I didn't make it. You did, at December 7, 2004 08:59 AM when you essentially said there was a double standard being applied with pro-gay and pro-Israel touchstones. When you claim a double standard, you're implying they're both analogous.

My post refutes your accusation of that double standard, nothing more.

The gay marriage amendment didn't cause Andrew to flip. It was the last in a long list of things that caused Andrew to flip.

Michael, I think it was pretty much Abu Ghraib. War is ugly, and even the most disciplined armies will have their bad moments. The important thing is to be vigilant and correct abuses. Now, when a person advocates war, as Sullivan did, they accept responsibility for such things as part of the package. But not Sullivan. Suddenly, it was no longer his war, it was Bush's war, and Bush had screwed it up. I wrote Sullivan at the time and told him that if he couldn't take the consequences, he sure as h*ll shouldn't ever beat the drums of war. I lost all moral respect for the man at that point. He no longer struck me as a grown up.

In the long run, I think Iraq will work out. When that day comes, Sullivan can take no credit for the achievement. He has copped out and spends his time carping from the sidelines.

Michael, I think it was pretty much Abu Ghraib.

Abu Graib didn't change anybody's mind. That may have been a convenient out for Sullivan, but that's it.

Michael,

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I think your are mistaking Andrew's rebelliousness in the Republican party to be the cause of his dislike in conservative circles (or neo-conservative in my case).

Andrew's railing against Republican excess and incompetence never bothered me in the least, in fact I respected him for this. And it never seemed to make a difference with his support for Iraq. He could have endorsed Kerry and it would not have bothered me in the least. But its the way everything played out.

As soon as gay marriage became an issue, he turned on the war effort in Iraq. If he wanted to attack Republicans and Bush for supporting the gay marriage amendment, fine, that is his right. But he should have been honest about it. Instead, he did an about face on Iraq and dissed the war he supported wholeheartedly. He then proceeded to try to use Iraq as a club against Bush in the hope of electing John Kerry.

Writing that article where he supported Kerry, but then claiming he was undecided in his blog didn't help much either.

Andrew's independence made him a likeable writer. It is his dishonesty, or appearance of dishonesty, that has made him annoying.

Bill - are you suggesting that it is not possible that Sullivan's recognition of the mistakes made in Iraq and Bush's decision to push an anti-gay agenda could not possibly have been a temporal coincidence?

After all, there were a lot of other writers who first began to criticize the conduct of the war at around the same time ... for the simple reason that certain things became blindingly obvious to all but the wilfully self-deceiving around that time.

If you're suggesting that only bad faith could possibly have accounted for a supporter of the war voicing criticisms at that particular time, you're accusing a pretty large group of people of bad faith.

I also want to point out that in the real world, Sullivan has by no means turned into an opponent of the war - in my view, he remains one of the most persuasive advocates for it: simply because he is one of the very few pro war commentators who has been prepared to assimilate all the bad news and honestly weigh it against what he believes the gains are and might be.

In the conviction of his pro-war position, Sullivan in fact leaves himself open to the opposite charge: that he is self-serving merely to blame the failures on poor planning and execution rather than on the decision to undertake the war in the first place. I happen to believe that 10 years from now, people will be unable to imagine how we thought it would turn out any different ... the same way as most people think of Vietnam.

Mork:

I happen to believe that 10 years from now, people will be unable to imagine how we thought it would turn out any different

Be serious. Want to put money on this?

Chuck - why wouldn't I be serious?

We will end up pulling out of Iraq in a couple of years leaving in place an authoritarian Islamic government and an ongoing insurgency, and having spent over $300 billion, lost 2,000 lives and suffered 15-20,000 casualties, all for nothing.

When the history books are written explaining how this all happened, the reasons will seem so clear in retrospect that future generations will be amazed that we were stupid enough to have done this.

Of course, what future generations will not fully understand is how 9/11 and the government's manipulation of people's anger and fear influenced their understanding of events in ways that simply won't seem rational in the future.

So, Mork,

If you are wrong in your predictions, and I think you will be, will you grovel on the ground and tell us all what an idiot you were? I mean, there is reality, and then again, there is real reality.

And what would you know about Vietnam?

If you are wrong in your predictions, and I think you will be, will you grovel on the ground and tell us all what an idiot you were?

No, I won't, I'll deny everything!!

Actually, let me prove my bona fides with a real live example of me being 100% wrong: I supported the invasion of Iraq at the time and for some months afterwards.

Let me now say: I was wrong, I was an idiot, I ignored the lessons of history, the wisdom of those best placed to judge the likely outcome and the evidence before my very eyes. If anyone with influence was stupid enough to take me seriously, then I humbly apologize for the conseqences of my imbecility.

How's that?

And what would you know about Vietnam?

You want a reading list? Or maybe you wanna try to tell me something I don't know.

Mork,

I'm not sure why the prospect of "hate speech" lawsuits here in the US stifling any discussion of Islamic oppression of women doesn't disturb you. In Europe, anyone who says ONE WORD against Islam or Islamists is a very brave woman or man.

Ask Theo Van Gogh (RIP).

Or less melodramatically, Michel Houellebecq or Oriana Fallacci.

I won't be surprised when it happens here.

Miklos - it would disturb me greatly if I thought that it were a realistic danger in this country ... although I think you exaggerate the situation hugely - notwithstanding the high profile incidents you refer to, there is plenty of commentary in mainstream European press and public discourse that is sharply (and frequently offensively) critical of Islam and Muslims. In fact, most of the western European countries have an anti-immigration (read anti-muslim) party that is a significant political force.

In any case, in terms of "hate speech", the situation is very different in Europe where they have much larger Islamic populations, and different cultural approaches and legal frameworks for what we consider free speech issues. So, I'm obviously concerned about the stifling of legitimate comment in Europe, but I'm not at all concerned about it being replicated in the United States.

In fact, I don't know anyone who still reads him. He's over, like Ally McBeal

Mork,

You might be right in the end. But Iraq isn't done yet. The situation is, shall we say, fluid. At some point it will stabilize into...something. Let's talk in certainties after that happens.

You and I don't agree about what's happening now, but that's because only one of us is sure about how it will look in a decade.

Mork,

I hope you're right, obviously, and that my fears are groundless. Certainly the murder of Theo Van Gogh seems to have woken a few people up. Rowan Atkinson, the comic actor, spoke in the House of Commons and vigorously objected to the notion that ridicule of ANY religion is "hate speech." (However, the law he objects to is now on the books.)

I think you're a little cavalier about the dangers Geert Wilders and other figures on the Islamic hit-list now face.

Could it happen here? Well, I don't have any links, but there's been a lot of activity in Canada to shut down any critique of Islam and to impose ("voluntary") sharia law.

Are you sure this couldn't happen in Detroit? A law has already been passed there to permit imams' call to prayer to be publicly broadcast from local mosques in one neighborhood that has traditionally been Polish. Five times a day. Is this as innocuous as churchbells to you? I'm not sure how it's then too farfetched to imagine that there might be some attempt at prohibiting stores from selling pork products and wine, and socalled voluntary recourse to sharia to settle some disputes.

There are PC politicians who might vote for these things. Perhaps because they think they need Muslim votes.

And if an American filmmaker did the equivalent of Van Gogh's "Submission," let's imagine a wellknown feminist who has a script about honor-rape -- are you really so sure it would be passively received? It's not like we don't have more John Walker Lindhs or John Muhammads out there, awaiting a devout and glorious end.

Perhaps you've forgotten about the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan, and how a few weeks later plans were found in the possession of jihadists of American schools, including one here in Oregon. Do you think this report was invented, as some kind of a scare-tactic?

The election's over. It's no longer a matter of pro-Bush spin to hate jihad, which manifests itself in both soft and hard parallel tracks. Parallel lines which seem to converge.

2 events deeply affected andrew's writing:

1) 9/11 - andrew, like the rest of us, got a big wake up call when 9/11 happened.

2) Bush's announcement to amend the Consti to ban gay marriage - I know it's personal, Andrew... your anger at Bush. You feel let down after strongly supporting the prez since 9/11. I understand the anger. You're entitled to rail against Bush on any issue.

But like the guy he endorsed... the defeatist, anti-war guy, whatshisname presidential candidate... I can't take Andrew seriously anymore on the WOT after he became a single issue voter on gay marriage.

I just don't trust his judgment.

and like the "Farbucks" story above, I found multiple alternatives (Powerline, RogerLSimon, Althouse, Belgravia Dispatch, Belmont Club, Kaus), so Andrew isn't sorely missed.

and re andrew being gay... it was never an issue for me.

I guess reading Andrew Sullivan is a guilty pleasure that dare not be admitted in public. Practically everyone left and right says they hate him, but his traffic is way higher than almost everyone else's. A lot of people read his blog. Am I the only one who "admits" it? Sheesh.

Is his traffic back to what it was a year ago?

and I think Mark Poling's comment below seems more correct.

(On the other hand, as a reliably Bush-bashing figure on the "Right", the ABB crowd must flock to him now like racists to a minstrel show, to be as politically incorrect as possible. My guess is that explains his increased traffic.)

I guess reading Andrew Sullivan is a guilty pleasure that dare not be admitted in public. Practically everyone left and right says they hate him, but his traffic is way higher than almost everyone else's. A lot of people read his blog. Am I the only one who "admits" it? Sheesh.

Is his traffic back to what it was a year ago?

and I think Mark Poling's comment below seems more correct.

(On the other hand, as a reliably Bush-bashing figure on the "Right", the ABB crowd must flock to him now like racists to a minstrel show, to be as politically incorrect as possible. My guess is that explains his increased traffic.)

Perhaps you've forgotten about the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan, and how a few weeks later plans were found in the possession of jihadists of American schools, including one here in Oregon. Do you think this report was invented, as some kind of a scare-tactic?

Yes, I do. I seem to recall that the idea that there was any evidence of a school attack in Oregon being planned was pretty thoroughly debunked.

The election's over. It's no longer a matter of pro-Bush spin to hate jihad, which manifests itself in both soft and hard parallel tracks.

Yeah - and some of us hate jihad enough to want it combatted in the most effective way possible, rather than encouraged and fostered by empty posturing and idiotic actions like the invasion of Iraq.

Mork - some of us hate jihad enough to want it combatted in the most effective way possible

What, in your opinion, is the most effective way of combatting jihad?

Michael - the question was about a threat to American culture, not security.

American culture is what it is because we do feel secure. The less secure we feel, the more likely some radical change in the culture will occur. How it would change would be anyone's guess. But considering historical precedents, I'd rather not find out.

Mary, I think that would be "round up the usual suspects."

Only don't put them in jail, or anything. Because they're just suspects. Habeas Corpus, you know.

And if they're suspects because somebody ratted them out under durress in some Saudi Arabian torture chamber, well, they're not suspects.

And if they're in jail, for God's sake don't send them back to Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey. They might be tortured.

So let's give the prisoners cards and job training. Then they can make money and send it back to all their starving relative who won't want to go to war no mo' if they just have some dollars.

Except the 9/11 terrorists were almost all from well-to-do families, and if I recall correctly most had college degrees.

So maybe they were interested in the plight of their greater culture, so making the culture wealthy is the answer. So let's throw lots of money at them.

Except we already buy like a gazillion dollars worth of oil from these greater cultures.

Oh, hell. Tra la la la. No blood for oil!

I was only a short timer at Andrew's blog. It didn't take long to realize that he was far from the well though out person many here have made him out to be. As a matter of fact, like many pundits today, he is a short sighted checkers player in a chess world.

As a Gay man I also realized that he suffers from that part of the "gay gene" that makes him
read the end of a story first. Always wanting to jump to the climax. Something BTW that many hetero's also suffer from. The President has always said this WOT was a long process a comparison to Truman's recognition of the Cold War and our policy shift addressing the communists is quite accurate.

Those who bemoan Iraq as a stunning failure are premature at best and fools at worst.

Lets see, the President warned about (and was right about) Iraq, Iran, Korea, steroids, the UN, etc. were based on information the impatient pundits like Andrew don't have (thank God!)!

The unrecognized fronts in the war on terror include the economic homefront and the direct attack on international corruption. Both of these are just as important as the military fronts.

Andrew is more of the UK/Euro conservative type that honors society over the individual and as such fits more easily in the DLC then in the conservative movement - neither a true conservative nor a Neocon.
DKK
LifeTrek

I'm surprised that the thread got this far without someone bringing up the following points. But before I bring them up, let me say (as I always do when criticizing Sullivan): he was conservative before 9/11 (which is why he didn't last long as Edior of TNR), and he made many of his criticisms of the Bush Administration long before Bush backed the FMA.

Nevertheless:

Andrew wrote a piece for The Advocate in the Spring of 2004 calling Bush's support a "deal breaker" for him, which would accord with our host's interpretation of events. However, the fact is that he did not reflect this view in his blog writing at the time. He gave a fairly disingenuous answer in response to questions about this omission and disparity raised by folks at National Review Online. He then continued -- arguably right up through the Fall -- to maintain the fiction that he might endorse Bush. This is an example of the honesty issue others have raised in this thread.

Second, since Bush backed the FMA, Sullivan has all too often descended into ad hominem attacks on his opponents. "Roundhead" was one such epithet. More interesting was his criticism of Zell Miller's speech at the GOP Convention. Sullivan chose to criticize Miller as a "Dixiecrat," based largely on a comment Miller made decades ago. Not only is this a debatable charge (ask James Carville or Paul Begala on this point), it left many wondering what it had to do with national security, which was Miller's speech topic. Sullivan later wrote that Miller had transferred his hatred from one group to another, as evidenced by his support for the FMA. Thus, Sullivan's own writing establishes that his position on gay marriage was coloring his writing on national security.

Moreover, during this same period, Sullivan's writing and argumenation became much sloppier. The previous example is one of many I could cite. More recently, you could look at his blogging on evangelist John Stott. First, he dismissed Stott as not influential, and criticized the NYT's David Brooks for suggesting he was. Then he got educated by his readers, apparently, because he ended up writing that he was "increasingly grateful" that Brooks brought up Stott. Never an admission by Sullivan that he didn't do his homework in the first place, of course. After all, that would suggest that Sullivan really doesn't know much about the people he constantly criticizes. BTW, I'm not an evangelical; in fact, I haven't been to a regular church service in years, perhaps decades -- I just have a problem with the sloppiness and the unwillingness to forthrightly admit a mistake (particularly when this is one of Sullivan's main criticisms of Bush).

Like some of the others here, I hope that he returns to form. Indeed, I hope that his writing over the past few months was influenced by his sleep apnea and that treatment may help him think more clearly (No sarcasm on this point; I know someone who has the same malady and sympathize completely). So I continue to scan the site from time to time. But if I miss a day, or a few days, it doesn't bother me. And I stopped supporting the site financially. I don't consider reading him a "guilty pleasure," because I've never felt guilty and it hasn't been a pleasure for months. It's more like a "hopeful disappointment" these days.

Yeah, in the prior post, that piece in The Advocate referred to Bush's support for the FMA. Sorry.

Re Dec 7th comment by S: "Pretty sure British subjects don't get to vote here."

(Well, Andrew certainly provokes reaction. Here we are still going on about him.)

I was bothered by the above comment, since I had assumed that AS was a naturalized American citizen. He certainly sounds as if he is. So I did a search. He isn't. I found the Nov 2004 edition of Reason magazine, where he is asked who he's going to vote for and he says he can't vote because he's not a citizen.

I have to say that this irks me. I thought maybe his HIV status had something to do with it, but I found that HIV status is not a barrier for resident aliens (which is what I now assume he is) to become citizens. So I'm stumped. Here's a guy who's been here for many years and whose life and career is focussed on American politics. Why has he not joined up?

Maybe he has never explicitly denied his immigration status as a green-carder, and maybe he has carefully avoided saying "we Americans" but I have been reading him for years and I failed to pick up on it. It makes me uneasy.

He can opine and blog and write and speak all he wants, to be sure, but it feels to me like an Anglican who goes to Catholic Church, writes and makes his living opining passionately and daily about Catholicism and is seen as a Catholic theologian, but who never converts and fails to remind us of that every once in a while. I'm kinda stunned, and not happy about this. His Reason answer did not say that he was "not a citizen YET", so I am led to wonder what his intentions are.

I emailed him and asked him about it, but no reply as yet.

My problems with AS views on Bush is that (as many noted), the moment he came out for the FMA, his entire view of Bush and everything he stood for went south. Suddenly the man he praised for standing up to Trent Lott was a pandering right wing bible freak. The Iraq war AS advocated and championed for suddenly turned into a quagmire (albiet one he still supports). The President's free spending tendencies, which were hardly a secret, suddenly became a scandal which he berated other conservatives (often the same conservatives who were grumbling about it in 02 and 03 when AS was not) for not joining him condemning.

But when the Swift Boat vet ad began running, he sunk even lower,in my view, because he started re-writing history where his own views were concerned. In 2000 (when he advocated Bush) he went so far as to ben a "TRB" editorial in the New Republic favorably comparing Bush's positive campaign to Gore's relentlessly negative one. But when the SWV ads ran, AS suddenly started claiming that Bush was always a dirty fighter, going so far as to dig up smears that were ran against McCain in 2000 (Bush ran against McCain before he ran against Gore; I checked it out).

And one other thing: In 2000, AS condemned the NAACP "dragging death" ad, accusing Bush of advocating lynching because he didn't sign a "hate crime act". AS defended Bush, saying he would have signed a hate crime law as long as it did not include hate crimes against gays & lesbians. Wouldn't AS have figured out that if Bush wasn't for hate crime laws that included gays, he wouldn't support gay marriage? Boggles the mind.

Mark - thanks for answering my question. I'm not surprised that Mork didn't.

About Andrew Sullivan - he seems like a moderate to me - maybe that's why he annoys so many people. I don't agree with him about everything, but he loathes Chomsky and he writes decent movie reviews. I read his blog.