The Greeks worried that this would create citizens lacking in civic virtue. Perhaps Andy, with his willingness to say anything about those he disagrees with, is a case in point.

Hmmm, maybe. I would like to think better of him, but that just may be nostalgia. I’ll keep reading, and sometimes it still is worthwhile for me.

Which reminds me of something (by VDH or another classicist) that I read some years ago: Many ancient Greeks were very suspicious of the Sophists because they trained people to persuasively argue any side of an issue. The Greeks worried that this would create citizens lacking in civic virtue. Perhaps Andy, with his willingness to say anything about those he disagrees with, is a case in point.

Yes, except I would rephrase that as “…denounce everyone he agreed with yesterday” because I suspect that few serious people agree or disagree with Sullivan, in the sense that they don’t pay any attention to him except when he smears them.

People probably don’t remember, but one sidetrack the gay marriage debate went down was, if there are civil unions, should any two people get to have a civil union or should it only be for people who would get married if it were legal to do so? Some states prposed legislation that would allow civil unions, but added that civil unions would not be predicated on a sexual relationship–so two sisters, for example, could have a civil union, and that way tax returns and hospital visitation rights etc could be the same as for a married couple.

Sullivan presented these proposals as a) legalizing incest and b) forcing gay people to pretend that they are just roommates or buddies and the government would have to install cameras in their bedrooms to make sure they weren’t having sex. That these were conclusions were based on contradictory premises did not bother him in the slightest–he knew very well what he was doing when he presented them this way.

It doesn’t just mean “VDH was wrong on the war”. It means, “VDH supports any militarist policy a Republican Administration will put in front of them, lacking the ability to tell a successful policy from a failing one, as long as it involves US troops shooting at something.”

Kristol, Hansen, et al: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a liar with deep psychological problems.

Sullivan: Hey, he may be a liar with deep psychological problems, but…what was that third thing you said again?

…Remember David Brock? Intrepid investigator for American Spectator turned intrepid investigator for Huffpo/Soros/Media Matters?

–furious

For a little info on Sullivan’s slide, you can look here.

I guess what irks me the most is that he comments on so many matters (military, interrogations, war, etc) that he has no knowledge about. The man went straight from college to writing magazine articles. He has no real world work experience whatsoever to draw upon.

Still, I quit reading him when I detected what I still consider to be genuine dishonesty in his arguments concerning torture. He did and still does deliberately conflate Iraq with Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib with Guantanamo, etc. in order to be able to claim that every member of the Bush administration is simultaneously a dullard and a sadist.

At his best, Sullivan is a fearless advocate and writer. Unfortunately it’s been a long time now since he’s visited that place.

yours/
peter.

There’s no greater zealot than a convert.

Jim, I could not agree more. Reformed smokers often act the same way. Damn, I just realized you aren’t on my blogroll. Huge oversight.

Oh, and P.S.

* Sullivan can (and will) change his mind tomorrow, at which time he’ll denounce everyone who agreed with him yesterday.

And pretend he never said such to begin with.

If he had been more realistic he might have not gone so out on a limb emotionally for the war, or not been so discouraged when it started going off the rails.

Andrew is all feigned emotion and donation drives, Oparah’s political Frey

Why he feels that it is okay to act superior to people who made the same error as he did is beyond me. One would think that would lead to a little moral humility, instead he covers with bluster, moral arrogance and vicious rhetoric.

Gay Marriage. One issue wonder. Donations.

Great to have a visitor from Gay Patriot. You were one of the first blogs I put on my blogroll back when it was just little ol’ me.

As Hanson said, disagreeing with him is one thing, misrepresenting him is another. You may have a point about Hanson, I haven’t combed back to see if your characterization is fair, and I hate to rely too much on my memory.

Everybody,

I still have a soft spot for Sullivan, and there are times when I still enjoy his writing. In fact, I agree with him often, but he still disappoints me with the flaws in his rhetoric that I describe above far too often. Personally I think he needs to reflect. He is floundering, and rather than admit he isn’t sure about what to do he is lashing out at the people who in his mind have let him down rather than take a good hard look at the rather naive view he took going into the war. His disappointment is his own fault. He should have seen the significant probability of our struggles before we went in. Instead, it is primarily everybody else’s fault.

If he had been more realistic he might have not gone so out on a limb emotionally for the war, or not been so discouraged when it started going off the rails. Most wars do, you have to factor that in from the start. Neither he nor the administration did enough of that. That has made it a tougher fight and left more for Sullivan to try and divert attention from by focusing on people who made the same mistake (assuming for arguments sake the war is a mistake) as he did. Why he feels that it is okay to act superior to people who made the same error as he did is beyond me. One would think that would lead to a little moral humility, instead he covers with bluster, moral arrogance and vicious rhetoric.

When 9/11 happened he was a champion of Afganastan and the war on terror.

Then …

“Bush” took sides on gay marriage.

Then …

It all changed. Sullivan changed. I don’t believe he saw the light on the WAR.
I belive he reacted in the way we see him react now.

Sometimes, it is that simple.

Rich

It’s not hard to model:

* Sullivan’s opinion today is good, right & moral; so
* Disagreeing with Sullivan’s opinion today makes you bad, wrong and immoral.

Oh, and P.S.

* Sullivan can (and will) change his mind tomorrow, at which time he’ll denounce everyone who agreed with him yesterday.

Two recent entries stand out. In this one, he takes Victor Davis Hanson to task for changing his mind about the war! Another post links to spoof site which is part of a viral marketing campaign for the movie Shoot ‘Em Up…

He was always a tad excitable and prone to fly off the handle. I guess I was willing to forgive him when it was Islamist terrorism he was shouting about. It’s easy to see how someone could get so upset about something so awful. But lately, poor Andrew has become a parody of himself.

Personally, I read the quotes along the lines Hanson says he meant them. I don’t even think it is close between Sullivan’s claim of what he meant and what the text on the page actually says.

FWIW – I did too. Anyone who has a strong opinion and whines on end about a book they refuse to read like Andrew, doesn’t deserve a page view let alone respect, as far as I am concerned.

Is there honor in out-sparring a fart? If so, by all means carry on. If not, please stop soiling yourself by speaking his name. You can always re-engage him if and when he again makes sense.

I personally am not sure if we should stay in Iraq, because I suspect a sectarian war there is inevitable.

Nonetheless I must say, Sullivan is a pathetic clown. I don’t think he’s humane: he’s overly emotional, which makes him entertaining. But he’s not serious about anything – he’s a perpetual teenager. Why Hanson even bothered responding to me, I don’t know.

I often wonder why a once-thoughtful man who could see and understand both sides of an issue, reacts so viscerally to ideas he once defended so eloquently.