Well, for anyone not entirely deluded by visions of peace processing and endless European conferences (yes, we’re talking Obama, George Mitchel, and the band of sycophantic enablers of the Martin Indyk variety), this should come as no surprise:
An American official has played down the prospects of any immediate progress in US envoy George Mitchell’s efforts to resume peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. “Are we expecting a breakthrough this visit? Probably not,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Friday.
Really nothing immediately? But the president had gotten impatient and gone to such great lengths to bash Israel into submission. This was all for naught? It must be disappointing, indeed, to those who imagine that Obama and crew are doing something productive to find out that there is not a hint of peace and the process is grinding to a halt. But Mitchell keeps on flying, meeting, cajoling, and babbling about a two-state solution, which is nowhere in sight. (“Mitchell stressed that the Obama administration was working to advance mutual Israeli and US interests, which he said were led by a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians based on the two-state solution, Israel Radio reported.”)
Meanwhile, the Obami have decided that what is missing from their exquisite Middle East policy is some more PR. Because it is always about a PR deficiency and never a policy problem with this gang. A voice of sanity pipes up:
“What happened here, is they came to a moment of truth about 10 days, two weeks ago, ‘we have failed,’” the former Democratic official continued. “’Our Middle East policy and posture is in chaos, is in failure, and there is no way to ignore it. And therefore, what do we do about it?’ And they decided, we need to change the posture. They realized they were going down a bad path. So they launched a PR campaign — a blitz — entirely to support the policy.”
Change the “posture” but keep the policy that has proven to be a complete failure. And meanwhile, while spinning their wheels and trying out new spin, the Obami still have no viable plan for halting the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions. The steady progress of Iran’s nuclear policy, even more than the wreckaage left in the wake of this administration’s Israel policy, is what we should not ignore and what very well may be the dismal legacy of the Obama team.
Let’s say the battle for Iraq is over,maybe. The Winners are the SHIITES including the Maliki Govt.,Sadr,and the Iranians. The losers are the US, and the Sunnis including AQ.(US troops will be gone within 18 months whoever is elected.If we aren’t gone,INSURGENCY 2) The results,rather than a functioning democracy in the ME,we have created a new center for Shia terrorist operations. Well, we can always do a Gulf War 3 in a few years to defend Saudi Arabia against an Iranian-Iraqi joint invasion.
In short, Andrew Sullivan remains a deeply unserious man with no capacity whatsoever for rational introspection, self-analysis and self-correction.
In related news, the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
I wondered if Excitable Andy would respond to Peter’s surgical evisceration of his pretensions yesterday.
Peter is nice to call Sullivan’s blame-it-all-on-Bush strategy a “transparent dodge.” I myself would call it a betrayal of our mission, our troops, our president and the truth itself. I’ve been wondering for awhile now why anyone quotes him or links to him anymore. He lost all credibility with me years ago.
On the other hand, as Peter illustrated yesterday, Sullivan’s work is a perfect illustration of the Soviet-style revision of history that the left has been allowed to get away with for the past five years. I am continually frustrated by the Republicans’ failure to point this out in an effective way.
Who gives a damn about what Andrew Sullivan has to say about anything? He is no longer relevant. What is the reason behind this obsession to worry about Sullivan? Please ignore him.
Wehner is returning Sullivan’s words in a manner best described by an obscenity.
If I am not mistaken, Sullivan turned on Bush and the Iraq war because Bush supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Sullivan views all events through his sexual orientation lense, consequently he has a viseral/sexual obsession with all things Bush.
To Peter Wehner: Bravo!
Peter Wehner’s dismemberment of Sullivan is absolutely brilliant, a classic example of refined disputation where one, without a word of malice, completely demolishes a disputant in his own words. This should be distributed and read widely. I, for one, am going to send it to practically everybody I know.
But what explains Sullivan’s radical transformation into a embarrassing blowhard totally divorced from his former self? Could it be that the almost universal loathing and shunning that he endured from the gay community for supporting the Iraq War left him so isolated and despairing in his interpersonal relations that only by abandoning his past beliefs and words could he restore himself in the good graces of the people he most cared for? Clearly, there is no rational explanation for his complete and abject about face. To claim that he was deceived by Bush is as contemptible as his current views.
By any standard, this response is devastating to Sullivan’s writings and views. Like you advocated in Iraq, Andrew, surrender.
All he can do now is plead that “Bush made me do all of this.”
As was recently pointed out, he’s now the Right’s Gore Vidal.
I was an early Sullivan reader (and contributor). When the blogosphere was a little ball, he reigned supreme. When he turned on Bush, and supported Kerry in 2004, it was clearly related in an emotional way to Bush’s opposition to homosexual “marriage”. Whatever the reason, though, it was an epic reversal, and destroyed Sullivan’s credibility for many of us who had the “Daily Dish” at the top of our internet favorites list.
Thank you, Peter Wehner, for your post.
Andrew Sullivan has turned himself into the blogosphere’s super-troll. Throughout the political intellectual community his former friends and colleagues show themselves unable to resist the temptation to reply to him, and so, in the familiar pattern, they feed him, and, by taking him seriously, bring their own seriousness into question. I can applaud Mr. Wehner’s attempt to bring Mr. Sullivan finally and definitively to account, but only with the hope that, at last, a failure on the latter’s part to respond satisfactorily will mark the beginning of the intellectual and political ostracism he so richly deserves.
It appears to me that some of the harsher critics of the Iraq War never set foot in the country?
Peter Wehner’s takedown is indeed masterly here, if aimed at a rather inconsequent subject. Sullivan having been for it before he was against it is a bumper sticker joke now. I think it was Sullivan who alerted us to the possible connection between Keith Olbermann’s height and his epic crankiness (and Max Boot, if I’m not mistaken, who linked that analysis from contentions), and that seems to be where Mr. Sullivan’s strength as a blogger lies these days. He might do well to funnel his energies more into cultural commentary.
I think Andrew got it sort of right. Its all proof that he’s off his rocker.
As some posts here have pointed out, Andrew Sullivan (a.k.a. The Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Avenger) sees everything through a gay marriage prism. Contentions is guilty of giving his positions on Iraq and the War on Terror far more credibility than they deserve.
If Russia had overthrown Saddam Hussein, President Bush would’ve given Putin his blessing. There is no comparison between America’s liberation of Iraq and Russia’s attempt to conquer Georgia. If America tried to annex Mexico or Canada and set up puppet rulers, Sullivan would have his comparison.
Andy is a crank who cant see past his sexual orientation or terminal case of BDS. He’ll probably still base his dishonest rants on BDS long after Bush leaves office. As far as I can tell, nothing he writes is worth reading.
Actually, “dubya culpa” is the correct Latin form of “The President made me do it”.
My memory may be quite faulty (senior moments) but I think I remember that Mr. Sullivan had a couple of gushy posts about his new companion about the time he did the 180.
Wehner just plain embarasses Sullivan here – and he had it coming – you can afford to be a fairweather fan of your favorite sports teams but you cannot be a fair weather fan of the biggest war this country has waged against terrorism.
On the one hand we have moral cowards like Sullivan – and on the other hand we have people like Hitchens with whom i agree very less (except of course for Iraq and is unequivocal condemnation of Islamic terrorism).
How wierd is it that the supposed right of center guy is so irrational about the war, while a committed liberal/leftist backs Iraq to the hilt ? My head spins.
Thank you MrWehner – you did a great job exposing Sullivan’s moral cowardice.
Thank you from me and many others as well; Christopher Hitchens couldn’t have done a better takedown… Andrew’s political perspective might meander, but zealotry stays constant. From puffing Holocaust deniers to trashing our troops’ sacrifice, Andrew has made a mockery of his former reputation.
Andrew Sullivan’s change of party can be traced back to the day Bush gave his support to the Defense of Marriage Act. I was an avid Sullivan reader and it was amazing to see him turn on a dime on every previous position overnight.
Sullivan is a pure subjectivist. His positions on a given day are a function of his mood. Today he is the water boy for the Holocaust deniers, tomorrow it’s for the “Jewish neocon” conspiracy nuts. Truth, reason, consistency, integrity — they mean whatever his positons are that day. More important to take a renegade position than to be right. A stunning fall from a beginning of such notable promise. His mind simply died and he turned himself into a clown. What is truly unforgivable though is his continuing to tout his book “The Conservative Soul”. Whatever the original merits of that book — I found some, not jam-packed, but some — it’s simply patent dishonesty to continue to call himself a conservative. He is the Tweety Bird of the blogosphere.
As with a prior poster, I was an early reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog, having read many of his extended articles in newspapers and magazines. I respected his writing, even when not always agreeing with his ideas. Gradually he shifted more and more toward blogging, with less emphasis on extended articles.
While vacationing in Provincetown in July 2003, my boyfriend and I had a couple of encounters with a truly disagreeable resort queen. You know the type, “P-Town (or Aspen, or Key West, or wherever) is such a special place, because of people like me, I’m kind of the essence of the place”. This guy was even rude about our dog, and I said to the b/f “Who is she, anyway?” Never having seen Andrew on TV, as the b/f had, I had no clue, but I started reappraising my opinion of the guy. Then again, it was Bear Week in P-Town, and we hardly fit that profile, so maybe he just was not in a civil mood around us.
Anyhow, Andrew seems to blog obsessively, constantly blurting out what’s on his mind. Others have shown how often he expresses outrage about somebody’s postings or a new article, but seems not to have read the linked item, often comically missing the point.
We may be observing the effect that always-on, constant reading and posting on blogs has upon the ability to think and rationally present arguments. Andrew doesn’t seem to do deep-think pieces anymore, longer works that require careful research and critical thinking. It’s all emotional reaction now, and it is doubtful that he even recognizes the change in his own mental habits and work.
Not to mention the supplements, steroids, HIV medications, and recreational meds having a cumulative effect.
In any case, Andrew is someone to ignore. Kudos to Peter Wehner for a calm, respectful, and reasoned rebuttal.
Moolah and nooky. To wit, who can forget the “need tens of thousands of dollars to pay for bandwidth” scam that Andrew repeatedly ran early on in his blogging career. His sudden change to anti-war/Bush was timed beautifully. He played both sides of the political coin perfectly and thus has made good coin throughout the Bush years. As a blogger! Not a small accomplishment. Albeit, the book thing didn’t work out very well. And Andrew found a soulmate who had very different views on foreign policy than Andrew. Not to mention the whole Defense of Marriage drama was timed perfectly with his becoming beloved. It seems he writes for his husband now. A pity, since what struck me most about this exchange is what a bad writer and thinker he has allowed himself to play for love. I say “play” thus giving Andrew the benefit of the doubt that Andrew isn’t dumb enough to believe much of anything that Andrew says these days.