This is brutal but sadly true about Andrew Sullivan:
There was, in fact, hardly a bigger cheerleader for going to war with Iraq than Andrew Sullivan. And it won’t do for him to invoke the defense that he was misled into the war because Saddam did not possess actual WMD. It’s true that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD, as the Bush Administration, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, and many others believed, along with the intelligence agencies of virtually every nation on earth. In retrospect, we know that Saddam engaged in a massive effort to mislead the world into believing he had WMD. The obligation was on him to comply with U.N. resolutions. He did the opposite, and he paid for his deception (and his cruelties) with his life and the end of his regime.
It is fine for people to change their positions over time, either because of new evidence or because of an evolution in their own views. And almost everyone who has said anything about Iraq has gotten something wrong. But few people have changed their minds as dramatically and emphatically as Sullivan has over the last few years.
Absolutely. And I am not particularly convinced, either, by Sullivan’s reply on his blog today, in which he argues thus:
I simply cannot pretend that what we’ve learned about them these past few years – and what I’ve learned about the Middle East and wider dimensions of the struggle against Jihadism – hasn’t deeply affected my views. Just imagine if the press were to discover a major jail in Gori, occupied by the Russians, where hundreds of Georgians had been dragged in off the streets and tortured and abused? What if we discovered that the orders for this emanated from the Kremlin itself? And what if we had documentary evidence of the ghastliest forms of racist, dehumanizing, abusive practices against the vulnerable as the standard operating procedure of the Russian army – because the prisoners were suspected of resisting the occupying power? Pete Wehner belonged to the administration that did this. It seems to me that, in these circumstances, the question of moral equivalence becomes a live one. When an American president has violated two centuries of civilized norms, how could it not be, for any serious person with a conscience?
First of all, no-one, apart from the most deluded hawk, has or would deny that abuses have occurred, involving not just American but other Coalition forces. The point is that those abuses have in some cases already been punished. One can and should argue that the punishments could have been more severe, but that is a detail. As for the other stuff about “abusive” practices, Sullivan is frankly inviting ridicule to argue that the conditions at Gitmo rank on the sort of scale of horrors that have been inflicted on captured combatants in other campaigns, most notably those involving Soviet forces in the past, for instance. For all that one might be alarmed – as I am – about the willingness of some apologists for torture to argue for it, I certainly do not get the impression that it has been widely used or encouraged by the US and other administrations. Of course if that is the case, I might change my mind.
No. I am afraid that the critics of Sullivan have a strong point. His change of mind has been so dramatic, his use of language so heated, that it is easy to see why people who now are on the receiving end of his ire feel the guy has not been entirely honest about his switcheroo. After all, Bush’s Big Government brand of conservatism that Sullivan finds so obnoxious – as I do -was hardly a secret even before 9/11, such as his flagrant abuse of free trade over steel tariffs, for instance.
As to Iraq, what did Sullivan – who is hardly an expert in military affairs – honestly expect would have happened when the invasion began: a squeaky-clean victory, an easy reconstruction and minimal violence? Hardly. To be sure, he was pretty quick to argue that the post-invasion phase needed larger forces, as McCain had argued at the time. And it is easy to see why those who argued that Saddam’s removal from power was justified – as I did – felt angry about some of the errors made post-invasion. But let’s be honest about this. If you back a war, you have to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences – bad shit can happen that you do not expect. To deny this is frankly to invite contempt.
So Andrew Sullivan is comparing the United States going into Iraq to Putin’s forces attacking Georgia. Indeed he even seems to be implying that the Americans are worse than Putin.
Charming.
As for abuses in Iraq – the vast majority of torture (let alone murder) has been committed by the very “resistance” Mr Sullivan now supports.
I hear he also supports Senator Obama.
I wonder which of the following things Andrew Sullivan likes best about Senator Obama:
His support for higher taxes.
His support for banning secret ballots in deciding whether a workplace is to be unionized – a position that has shocked even George McGovern.
Or his support for partial birth abortion and infanticide. For it has long been Barack Obama’s position that babies who manage to survive certain procedures (and some do) should either be killed or be left to die.
“No, no, no – I do not support these things, I support different tactics being used in Iraq from the start and a much tougher line (again from the start) being taken against abuses committed by American forces”.
Errrr that would mean supporting John McCain, not Barack Obama.
I’m sick of Sullivan. His blog is almost unreadable. I can’t get past a single word without thinking, “but he wanted this war!” The sad thing is, he acts like he’s been “virtually correct” all these years.
And when will he ever get rid of those obnoxious awards? What size balls do you need do have been so wrong in so many ways, and still mock other people’s opinions.
Did AS miss this mornings press conference by the President of Georgia talking about the roving Russian militia’s ethnically cleansing S. Ossetia even as we speak?
I know these are merely charges and have not been proven, but it sounds remarkably similar to what he is suggesting is outrageous.
I guess that is why I removed him from my RSS feed two years ago.
I don’t understand how this man still has a job. He was one of the biggest Iraq war supporters, and one of the most vociferous voices to denounce Jihadists after 9/11, almost as if he wanted to prove his male credentials.
He abandoned all support for the war and for the administration when Bush didn’t support gay marriage.
Anyone who thinks the right for gays to marry is more important than the struggle against tyrrany and terrorism is not one to be taken seriously anymore.
Here, to me, is the best part of the article:
It’s been suggested, and on reflection compellingly, that Sullivan’s turnaround was directly premised on the President’s opposition to gay marriage.
When Bush came out (hah! a pune, or play on words!) against that, Sullivan turned on him and hasn’t really looked back.
This analysis would be too one-dimensional and flimsy to propose except that it fits Sullivan’s actual behaviour staggeringly well, and explains both the suddenness and ferocity of his change of direction.
(Like others, I stopped reading or caring about Sullivan years ago.
I’m not even a Republican or conservative, and his claims to be either are hilarious to me, just as they are to people who really are either.)
If you back a war, you have to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences – bad shit can happen that you do not expect. To deny this is frankly to invite contempt.
well, thats most warbloggers than. i remember blogs back in 2002, i was blogging. there wasn’t much acknowledgment of law of unintended consequences. we, the USA, were the Greatest. that was it.
It’s been suggested, and on reflection compellingly, that Sullivan’s turnaround was directly premised on the President’s opposition to gay marriage.
I was reading him them. Absolutey – he was quite clear on the matter. Later he added rationalization after rationalization. But at its hart it was sexual fury.
Now it’s just egotism I suspect.
So to him gay marriage is more important – so what. I actually stopped reading him long before that, simply because to me he got boring. Still, I have discovered the blogosphere through his blog, and for that I will be forever thankful.
Just imagine if the press were to discover a major jail in Gori, occupied by the Russians, where hundreds of Georgians had been dragged in off the streets and tortured and abused?
Mr. Sullivan’s choice of punctuation tells me all I need to know about him and his intellectual abilities.
such as his flagrant abuse of free trade over steel tariffs, for instance.
It’s also “frankly inviting ridicule” to pretend that the now-expired steel tariffs (dropped as soon as the WTO complained) were a “flagrant abuse of free trade.” They were insignificant and tiny compared to the abuse of free trade in, e.g., the farm bill that he signed, or even the compromise to keep some hosiery tariffs in place (in order to secure the vote of a North Carolina Congressman for CAFTA). There are all sorts of other Big Government actions as well.
Picking the steel tariffs as your example is frankly ridiculous.
“So to him gay marriage is more important – so what.”
The point is that his positions on everything else flipped because the prez pissed him off on this issue.
cb, I understand that, but every has one single issue that is most important to them, and is not important to most people. For example, most people don’t see why McCain-Feingold is something to get worked up about. To them it seems no more important than gay marriage. In fact, I suspect that to most Americans the war in Iraq belongs in that same category. As opposed to, say, healthcare or the housing market.
Maybe the war is not such a good example, because of the financial cost. But you get the idea.
“He abandoned all support for the war and for the administration when Bush didn’t support gay marriage.”
Er… Correct me if I’m wrong here but that’s just (a) spitting you dummy out of the pram and (b) utterly bizarre because US marriage laws are state, not federal so W could witter on about “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” until the cows were made into Big Macs and so what…
Oh, there was the FDMA but that was never going anywhere. Nor should it. It is a silly, silly thing to amend the Constitution over.
Anyway, if you throw a strop because somebody doesn’t agree with you on everything then… Well, your Mum and kindergarten teachers have a lot to answer for.
Hell, much though I despise them I’m sure in the last 11 years Labour has done something right.
Thinking…
Still thinking…
Off to bed.
It’s not Sullivan’s policies about gay marriage (which I happen to agree with for the most part) that is the problem.
The problem is that he abandoned his positions completely across the board in terms of not just the war, but everything else that had anything to do with the administration. It’s hard to take someone seriously today when they turn around and contradict themselves months later.
If hypothetically Samizdata came out tomorrow and endorsed national ID cards as the best way to solve “the immigration problem” in the UK, and later it turned out the real reason for this sudden intellectual shift was because of gay marriage, wouldn’t that seem to be unreasonable?
Sullivan’s politics are between his legs. When Bush came out for the FMA, Sullivan flipped on Bush and all that he stood for. The war in Iraq was just another casualty in his new jihad.
That is just plain nonsense, Mr Thacker. Your argument looks like a lame apology for what was an early indication that Bush was prepared to rain on his allies (like the UK), hit domestic US manufacturers with higher prices all in the name of buying votes. It may have been a minor issue to you but not to the manufacturers that were clobbered as a result. Of course there are dozens of other examples of Big Government nonsense one could pick, such as the drugs prescriptions Act, the Education Bill, spending, etc, etc. But the tariff issue was a blatant example.
Yes and no.
Part of what’s up in the air is the idea that each state is required by the “Full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, to honor each other state’s marriages and divorces. That was problematic when some states allowed interracial marriage and others forbade it. Then the miscegenation laws all went away and the issue died until gay marriage became a big issue, when Massachusetts’ state supreme court struck down the state’s ban.
It becomes a Federal matter when Adam and Steve have a big gay wedding in Harvard Square and then decide to spend their honeymoon in Estes Park, CO, where their marriage is not recognized under Colorado state law. If an elk tramples Adam, and they hadn’t written a medical power of attorney, can Steve make medical decisions on behalf of his…whatever?[1]
Forcing CO to honor a MA marriage that violates CO law would be a violation of federalism, as would IMHO forcing MA to disallow same-sex marriage in order to accomodate the asshats in Colorado Springs[2]. On the other hand, letting a state refuse to recognize another state’s marriages violates Full Faith and Credit.
Meaning: legally, I don’t think there’s an easy answer to this one.
I just had a scary thought: what if states were allowed to refuse to recognize each other’s divorces? I could still be married in Missouri or some such.
There are some silly, silly people holding elective office in the US. I voted for one of the silliest of them all twice now. I’m still kicking myself for that.
[1] That’s the part that confuses me, actually. Are they “husband and husband?” “Mister and Mister?” Where’s Emily Post when we need her?
[2] When they give this state an enema, CO Springs is one of four places where the nozzle can go. The pastor of one CS megachurch was a loud voice supporting the gay marriage ban in 2006, up until it came out (so to speak) that he was in the habit of loading up on redneck cocaine and, um, patronizing male prostitutes.
Thanks for that Sunfish. I had vaguely wondered what the score is on recognising marriages between states with different laws. So to all intents and purposes Adam and Steve could effectively divorce by moving to Denver withoput all that legal expense!
Invoking the “There were no WMD in Iraq” excuse is Monday morning Quarterbacking of the highest degree.
Decisions are made on the basis of incomplete information. condemning the original decision on the basis of information that subsequently coems to light is disingenuous
Imagine a convicted felon who is stopped by the police in his car. He is asked to place his hands on the dashboard. Instead he reaches into the glove compartment. The cop reiterates the requesrt. PUT YOUR HANDS where I can see them. The felon continues to reach into the glove compartment. After multiple warnings the Felon was shot. I don’t consider the cop guilty of murdering an unarmed man in this instance. Sadaam was given multiple opportunities to either demonstrate his lack of biological weapons or face the destruction of his vile regime. That Sadaam decided to play Texas Hold Em and go all-in with a busted flush is no one’s fault but his own.
The other startling thing about Sullivan’s switcheroo is that he turned literally overnight –one week he was supporting Bush, the next week he felt betrayed and backpedalled furiously from his original stances on the war.
The truly bizarre thing about the timing of his turn was that it did not coincide with any particularly momentous event or story from Iraq –rather it started the very day the White House announced support for the Defense of Marriage act. That such a completely unrelated issue should turn Sullivan so thoroughly and suddenly, calls his intellectual honesty into question.
I completely agree, and its the reason I stopped reading his blog.
I think any regular reader of Sullivan’s blog in those days saw this transformation for what it was, a visceral response to the administration’s position on same-sex rights.
“It’s been suggested, and on reflection compellingly, that Sullivan’s turnaround was directly premised on the President’s opposition to gay marriage.”
This is absolutley right.
More than that, to Sullivan, absolutely everything is about being gay. 9/11 was, to him, about a new sense of unity, inspired by a vicious attack, that would make Americans more willing to accept gay people and gay marriage. This imaginary utopian outcome was bound to fall apart at some point. Bush coming out (ha!) against gay marriage was the moment Sullivan’s bubble was burst. People who have their vision of some imaginary utopia destroyed do not usually grow up, realize they were deluded, and move on. Instead, they hate the person who burst the bubble, and say, if only that monster had seen my vision as well, it would have come true.
Mr. Bush is subject to an enormous amount of legitimate criticism. But Sullivan has been useless for a long time, for that or for any other purpose.
I think it’s hasty to say that Saddam didn’t have WMD stockpiles before we’ve looked everywhere. I know we didn’t look in Syria, the recipient of bunches of mysterious prewar shipments from Iraq. I wonder if any of that stuff was what got bombed by Israel…
There’s a difference between “didn’t exist” and “not proven to exist.”
A couple of years ago now I went on Sully’s blog. One post was about how American Muslims feel persecuted and victimized in post 9/11 America. The very next one was abotu banning circumcision of infant males. I concluded that he was either insane, astoundingly ignorant, or plain vanilla thick and I’ve never seen any reason to change my mind on that.
Gabriel, you just cannot leave this issue alone, can you?!!!!! Leave the kiddies’ cocks alone, for goodness sake, dear fellow.
Seriously, you have a decent point about the nonsense of Muslims feeling persecuted in the US. By any objective standards, religious groups of all kinds get a remarkably fair shake in the States. It is one of the legacies of the separation of church and state that you unwisely mocked the other day in a different thread. To be fair to Sullivan in his saner moments, he realises that this remains one of the best things about Jefferson’s Republic. May it remain so.