Redstate

Posted at 1:53am on Jun. 1, 2008 Your "Heads, I Win/Tails, You Lose" Moment Of The Day

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

More times than I can count, Andrew Sullivan has argued that any long term conflagration that occurs in the Middle East as a result of the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is and should be traceable to the decisions that President Bush made in removing Saddam from power. Thus, if the Middle East goes to hell in a handbasket, President Bush is to blame. As just one example of this kind of argument, see this post, where Sullivan argues that thanks to the Bush Administration's decision to remove Saddam, "[w]e have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare." Presumably, this state of affairs will last for quite a while into the future--if not for generations (in any event, the near-permanent nature of this state of affairs is more than implicit in Sullivan's rhetoric)--and if it does, President Bush will be at fault for it.

Today, Sullivan responds to a post by Ross Douthat which states the following (this is Sullivan's excerpt):

Bush's hopes for vindication depend on the Middle East's following a gradual, Fukuyaman track toward free markets, democratic government, and the "end of history." And just as crucially, they depend on American troops' staying in Iraq for as long as it takes for that to happen. If these events come to pass--if the Iraq of 2038 or so is stable, democratic, and at peace with its neighbors, and if American troops have maintained a constant presence in the country--no one should be surprised to hear hawkish liberals as well as conservatives taking up the idea that George W. Bush deserves a great deal of the credit.

Sullivan's response?

It seems to me that if a policy can only be judged from the vantage point of thirty years into the future, the possibility of any sane or rational judgment of it as we decide is impossible. Such time-lines make such decisions close to meaningless, and remove all proximate responsibility for those making them. If Iraq does end up as Ross and I hope, I see no reason to congratulate George W. Bush for botching the start of it.

(Emphasis mine.) So, if things turn out badly, Bush is responsible. If things turn out well in the end, then Bush's decisions are "close to meaningless, and remove all proximate responsibility for those making them."

Just let the nature of this new, intellectually shallow argument--motivated purely by convenience and animus on Sullivan's part--sink in. Doesn't he check his own archives? And isn't he embarrassed by the way in which he blatantly contradicts his own arguments for the sake of animus and animus alone?

Posted in Andrew Sullivan | Bush Derangement Syndrome | Foreign Affairs | The Middle East — Comments (8)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:56am on May 6, 2008 Know Hope

Yes We Can Poke Fun At Andrew Sullivan

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Thank Heavens for this blog post, which makes an exceedingly valuable observation concerning Andrew Sullivan's surprise recommendation that Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate:

I had thought that Mr Sullivan's affinity for Mr Obama was based on the candidate's promise of a break with the Clintonian politics of the past. But Mr Sullivan seems all too willing to sacrifice that principle on the altar of victory. He's happy to have Mrs Clinton engage in "the dirty pugilism of the campaign", as long as it benefits Mr Obama.

Mr Sullivan argues that picking Mrs Clinton doesn't necessarily mean Mr Obama is "capitulating to old politics". Rather, it could demonstrate "his capacity to reach out and engage and co-opt his rivals and opponents." Perhaps, but it could also demonstrate his willingness to do almost anything to win. Then the question must be asked, who has co-opted who?

Over to you, Andrew.

Posted in 2008 | Andrew Sullivan | Barack Obama — Comments (6)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:45pm on Oct. 23, 2007 "Irony" isn't just the taste in your mouth after the bridle comes out, Andrew.

By Thomas

Displaying that remarkable, cutting insight that has made him the toast of left-wing nuthouses everywhere ... well, let's just offer Andrew Sullivan in his own words.

RedState has now done what the rest of the GOP establishment would like to do: they've banned all discussion of Ron Paul from their bulletin boards, comment threads and interactive forums. Money quote:

Andrew (I can call you that, right?) then quotes two paragraphs limiting that discussion to established users.

But! The best part? The comments on Andrew's site discussing...

Oh, right. Yeah. No comments. Fascism is alive and well, and it has shacked up with dramatic irony (and they're such a cute couple!) in a corner of The Atlantic.

Posted at 2:46pm on Sep. 20, 2007 Rising Dreads Can't Be Broken

By Thomas

Kevin, Kevin. Of course people read Andrew Sullivan. We know, because they send him letters. Haven't you noticed? It goes like this:

Step One: Andrew feels the dread rising about Some Important Topic of the Day. Shares this weeping with the world.

Step Three: Sullivan amens the amen, and then employs some laughable turn of phrase to encapsulate his just-praised wittiness.

It's like art. But highly predictable art from Brazil.