Saturday, September 14, 2002
NORAH RETURNS THE FAVOR:
Our fisking of Norah Thin-Skinned yesterday did something even we didn�t expect it to: broke our barely week-old record for visitors by more than twice over.
More than 900 of you came by, helped not only by the links from Atrios and Cappozolla but Media Whores Online, Ted Barlow (who notes we had our �spurs on�), and skippy (who compliments us for �a damn fine job refuting her.�).
Norah has, however, continued to responde by pressing the (moot for two reasons) questions of libel law vis-a-vis blogs, and this led to some posts at other blogs which we shall address later.
AND SPEAKING OF MWO:
We would be remiss if we did not share with readers their significant take on Smalltown Boy�s spin on the U.N. speech:.
The UN appearance yesterday is, in fact, evidence that there has been a successful check on Chimp's unlimited power, as is his flip flop on his failed "regime change"/preemptive strike doctrine. Only in the bizarre world of a wingnut can "Show 'em who's boss � give in to their demands!" turn into a battle cry.
To watch Sully and others clearly acknowledge Bush went to the UN because he had to, and then attempt to turn his submission to critics' demands into some sort of "victory" is hilarious. The delusion among some is so profound one can do nothing more but enjoy it for its amusement value. As Paul Krugman said today, "these days reality has a way of outrunning satire." In this case it's the reality of the right's steadfast resistance to reality that is making life difficult for satirists.
Still, it is fun to read people like Sully and try to figure out where, precisely, the break from reality occurred. In his case, we think we've found the culprit here
Either they have to fess up and say they have no problem with weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad
Yes, there is an imaginary �fact� rattling around in Sully's head and causing all manner of malfunction: Americans who oppose Bush's incompetent, rudderless, and disastrous approach to foreign policy do so because they support weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's hands. (They just haven't �fessed up� yet, but now he's got them right where he wants �em.)
Is it just us, or does anyone else see the irony in an actor manqu� ripping Frank Rich?
posted by Sully 9/14/2002 01:13:00 PM
AXIS OF RIFFRAFFERY:
Rittenhouse, who first noticed the Jackson Browne Barnicle-ism, and Atrios, our co-ringleaders in guerilla attacks on Norah Vincent, give their takes on her latest spasm.
Rittenhouse also took the time to point out that Norah should thank us, sincewe generated so much of her traffic today.
THE FISKER FISKED:
Since Sully offered nothing new today, we�ll take the time to go back and look at his recent Salon piece on Susan Sontag�s 9/10 NYT piece.
First, when Sontag criticizes the war as having no foreseeable end and Smalltown Boy responds that that�s generally the rule in international conflicts, we might say that he�s being too literal-minded. We read it as referring to how the war will end, not when. This purposeful misreading colors the entire piece (of course, we also think Sontag is somewhat over-the-hill too ... when you're becoming a punchline on The Simpsons, it's time to take a step back. But she�s not quite as clueless as Sullivan believes).
Yes, no one knew how long World War II would take, timewise, but it was pretty clear what would constitute victory: the crushing of the Axis. Ditto with the Hundred Years� and Peloponnesian wars, all of which had clearly defined notions (at least at the outset) of what would constitute victory.
A little later on, he gets downright depressing:
When, according to Ms. Sontag, did the wars in the Balkans ever really end? Or begin? When did the conflict in Ireland ever really end? Why would the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, bubbling for millennia, automatically be required one day to end? Maybe there will be some sort of settlement some day that isn't beset by violence. But I doubt it. Some wars - like the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries which our current war strongly resembles - last generations, or go dormant, and then revive.
Wars in the Balkans, as any historian of that region knows, began in a sense after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and went dormant, we�ll agree, during the Cold War when Communism held sway.
But it's worth noting that they can end. The recent unpleasantness in that region should properly be referred to by history as the Yugoslav Wars, since all of them concerned that former country. It�s worth noting that Bulgaria and Greece, two not-infrequent participants in armed conflicts in that region prior to World War I, have been war-free during the same time the former Yugoslav states have been invading and ethnically cleansing each other.
Of course, wars mean an expansion of government power. That is why, for example, small-government types like me support war only as a last resort.
You�d never know that from the past year.
But unlike Sontag, I consider the massacre of 3,000 people in New York City, after decades of low-level terrorism against American citizens, and the promise of even more bloodshed, to be a reason to defend ourselves. At long last.
Hmm. Would Sully care to remind us, at this point, as he has had to sometimes, how he fanatically opposed Clinton-era anti-terror measures as infringements on civil liberties? Given his demonstrable, laughable and complete flip-flop on George W. Bush from the campaign through now, we could be excused for thinking that his thinking on the issue has not been consistent over the last several years.
Sontag doesn't seem to understand that there is something called the Constitution of the United States. It mandates that the people of the United States get to pick their government.
It explicitly does not, at least as far as presidential elections go (if you recall, that was part of the reason for the judicial abomination known as Bush v. Gore). If it did, Al Gore would be president and Sully would be foaming at the mouth.
As for Kyoto, Sontag seems to be unaware that it was never ratified by the Senate. We can't abrogate a treaty we never ratified.
No, but when your allies have every reason to think you will ratify as soon as a few of the quirks get worked out, and then you choose to back out of the agreement entirely, they might have reason to feel upset. Would you buy a house from someone who dealt this way?
He ends by mocking Sontag for (according to him) suggesting that there is something wrong with pre-emptive strikes.
Hmm. Remember back in June how he was invoking Minority Report and the Jose Padilla arrest to suggest that we were now arresting people for crimes they have yet to commit, which was, of course, a worrisome trend?
By the logic he�s chosen to use here, Japan was within its moral rights to attack Pearl Harbor pre-emptively, since we were aggressive and threatened their national interests in the Pacific and had gone and provoked them a few months or so before by freezing their assets over the invasion of Manchuria.
Of course, it was not. Japan of the 1930s was not a peace-loving democracy. And peace-loving democracies do not generally strike first as they give their enemies the chance to consider their actions.
There is certainly nothing wrong, and everything right, with doing what we can to protect ourselves from any terror initiated by Iraq (not that anyone�s shown any conclusive proof yet to us of actions in the present and in the future).
But it�s one thing to arrest people for crimes they have planned and prepared (and thus conspired) to commit, and another to arrest people because they're the sort of people who might commit a crime. If you can show us that Iraq has backed a plan to use WMDs for an imminent terror operation in the domestic U.S., then we would be upset if you didn�t act (which, of course, makes it sort of funny that Dick Cheney dealt with Saddam as much as he did at Halliburton). But the present situation and set of facts do not justify the kind of action you want to take.
Its rhetorical hiccups aside, Sontag�s essay is at heart a plea for some sort of clearly enunciated long-term vision for a mission statement for the war on terror, something the Bush administration seems to think need go unsaid.
And we cannot hold the states that sponsor these people responsible. Saddam must stay.
It does not follow from what Sullivan has quoted that Sontag believes in preserving Saddam in power, since she mentions him absolutely nowhere.
And by the way, we sure as hell held the Taliban responsible, didn�t we? Sully seems to be assuming you slept through last October and November.
posted by Sully 9/14/2002 03:13:00 AM
Friday, September 13, 2002
CHUTZPAH OF THE MILLENIUM AWARD:
�The short answer is that they're so busy calling for us to have a debate that they've forgotten to join it.�
This from the same guy who had spent the whole summer treating debate on Iraq as if it were a waste of time.
EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK ...:
So, now that we might have a weapons-inspection regime again, can Saddam reasonably expect us to concoct one that isn�t just a trap to get him into a war with us (which he seems to have been wanting to avoid at present).
SPEAKING OF REMEMBERING ...:
Demosthenes has this point to make over on Eschaton:
Did anybody else notice that not once was Al Qaeda mentioned in that entire Sully editorial?
"We will forget". Indeed.
And, we�d add, in any of his postings today, either.
I mean, he only killed 3,000 people on American soil a year ago. It's not like he actually runs a country with lots of oil or anything ...
NORAH VINCENT: THE IMPLOSION CONTINUES ...:
We�d like to extend a warm welcome to Sullivan proteg�e Norah Vincent as the latest member of the SullyWatch regular readership community.
While she doesn�t say so explicitly, of course, it�s obvious from her latest, even more laughable attempt to respond to those who found much to howl about in her recent, inauspicious debut as a blogger, a debut marked by a charge of Mike Barnicle-esque repeating of a Jackson Browne lyric and her �I AM HER LORDSHIP NORAH, GRAND DUTCHESS OF RIGHT-WING DYKEDOM! I DO NOT TOLERATE CRITICISM FROM MERE COMMONERS!" response (in which she didn�t deny the charge).
Excuse us the digression, but we�ll bring it back to Sully eventually (since she does too). We now prepare for a good ... oh, we hate to say this .... f!$king.
WARNING: QUOTED MATERIAL MAY CONTAIN THOUGHT-LIKE SUBSTANCE (tip o� the hat to Gregg Easterbrook)
[S]ince it has become clear to me that a post I made not long ago about said blogosphere has been wildly misunderstood, I thought it appropriate to qualify a few of my earlier comments.
From what I can tell,
�From what I can tell ...�? Oh, the balls of steel this woman has! What we wrote and read couldn�t get more explicit.
the most hotly decried portion of my earlier commentary on blogging read as follows: �The blogosphere is full of nasty riffraff and wannabe pundits who because they haven�t an earnest, original idea in their heads, fill their empty existences sniping impotently at legitimate targets. By legitimate targets I mean people who have actually had some measure of success in their professional lives, people who get published regularly in the mainstream press�
First let me clarify what I meant by riffraff. Many people who read the above passage assumed (erroneously, as it happens) that I was being an unconscionable snob, dividing the blogosphere into two camps, bloggers who are professional writers, and bloggers who aren�t�the former being legitimate, and the latter being riffraff. I meant no such thing.
No, Norah, you should have said you misspoke. We�ve tried, but we absolutely cannot read the quote as not dividing bloggers into those who are established media pundits and those who aren�t, the riffraff being safely part of the latter group.
Instead of trying to say, as she does later, that �not being a professional writer doesn�t make you riffraff,� she should have just apologized. It was the only sensible thing to do, indeed the only thing to do.
In my view, you don�t by any means have to be a professional writer to put out a good, worthy, or otherwise laudable blog. That is, in fact, the beauty of the blogosphere. Plenty of very good bloggers aren�t writers at all, but they nonetheless treat us to their sound, incisive commentary on politics, culture and everything else. Megan McArdle, for example, who runs the peerless Jane Galt, to which I am so often referring in utter awe, has spent the past year working at Ground Zero.
Leaving aside the fact that the quality of Megan/Jane�s writing has absolutely nothing to do with where she works (unless you need to force a topical reference into everything you post, and you somehow forgot to acknowledge 9/11 in your blog), we�re sure that Megan/Jane really appreciates Norah implying here that she�s not a good writer (assuming, as we hope is not so, that she isn�t aware that being called a bad writer by Norah Vincent is like being called a lousy businessman by George W. Bush).
So who are these slimebags? Why don�t I name them?
Will the real SullyWatch please stand up ... please stand up ... please stand up ...
Because I refuse to give these limpets more site traffic�the very thing they are hoping their outrageous and stupid remarks will bring them.
Yet by making the reference unmistakeable, she will eventually do that anyway.
Because there are no rules of conduct, as yet, in the blogosphere, the victims of such attacks have little recourse.
We suppose posting a reply on their own blog won�t do, then? (Or is Norah tacitly admitting she�s not up to the job she�s setting out for herself here?)
I would, incidentally, be interested to hear from the lawyers out there about what the rumblings are in the legal community regarding blog abuse and what can be, or perhaps is already being done about it. Is there a body of �bloglaw� already taking shape in the wings? What are the issues at hand? Will blogs be subject in the future to the same rules as print venues�rules regarding fact and harm? I�d imagine that InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds and Walter Olson would have plenty to say on the subject. Hopefully, I can get them to weigh in here.
Yeah, like they don�t get a million transparent ass-licking attempts to generate traffic like this every day.
While she�s setting up for her climax here, we ought to remind her that there is, in fact, a body of law that governs this newfangled thing called �blog abuse.� It�s called libel, slander and defamation, and it�s been around for years. She might want to look it up.
As another short aside on the subject,
which goes on for two grafs.
I�d like to expose one particular lie that�s being disseminated about me on some of these riffraff sites. A couple of gleeful little nitpickers
Atrios, take a bow!
who clearly have nothing better to do than comb my site for crunchies, have been spreading the word that I�ve been soliciting money for my website under false pretenses. Their claim? Blogging doesn�t cost anything, so why do I have the following blurb posted next to my tip jar? �Web real estate is expensive! If you like the site, toss me some coin to help put a virtual roof over my head!�
The answer is that my blog has indeed cost me something.
Oh yes ... your credibility (not that there was much of that to begin with).
On the very first day the blog went up I received enough visitors to overload the system
Well, if you must say so yourself ...
and was obliged to purchase more bandwidth from my server in order to get the site up and running again.
This is specious, mendacious nonsense. Norah, you don�t just lie with woman as with man, you just lie like a rug with a cement block on it.
Norah�s blog uses the same server this one (as well as Atrios, Eugene Volokh and the overwhelming majority of bloggers) does ... BlogSpot. She has her own site, norahvincent.com, that presumably runs off another server. Maybe that�s what she�s talking about.
Or, we suppose, what she wants you to think she�s talking about. That server, which she might well pay for, has a link to the blog ... but excessive traffic, if indeed there was any, would be Blogspot�s problem and not her host�s (Which brings us back to the issue of why she hosts the blog on Blogspot anyway, as presumably it was the fact that it was free that attracted her).
This detail was something none of these sleuths bothered to check out before they went to town with their puggish indictment.
No, because we couldn�t and because we didn�t think you could possibly imagine us dumb enough to fob this excuse on. Even you.
This is a very minor point, but an example of the kind of small-minded sludge that passes for commentary on certain blogs.
And obviously it�s so minor that you had to mention it twice how minor it is.
To those in question, and they know who they are
I say this: If you don�t like my ideas, don�t read them.
Oh, there are supposed to be ideas here? Thanks for letting us know ...
If you disagree, by all means do so. But don�t poke around making petty accusations you can�t substantiate.
See above. Ball�s in your court.
As for �legitimate targets,� the other contested portion of my earlier post. The whole reason I chose to define a �legitimate target� as someone who has achieved professional success and even fame, is because it is precisely the name recognition that goes along with success and fame that makes such targets so lucrative for the riffraff who attack them.
First, Norah, your �fame and success� isn�t as much as you think it is. Were it not for the grace of the Mighty Wurlitzer pushing you into the LA Times and elsewhere, you would be little people too (and very little, at that).
And lucre? Where are we supposed to get this? Is there some secret stash in the Caymans we didn�t know about?
Now she turns to us:
But spread rumors about Andrew Sullivan�s sex life, and you�ll have the whole world at your door. That is, of course, precisely why people spread rumors about Sullivan, rumors that have no place in decent company or decent journalism, but which nonetheless prevail because they get the desired reaction, a reaction that only small-time scribblers, losers and supermarket tabloids ever evince any interest in.
Sorry to disappoint you, Norah, but they�re not rumors ... they�re the truth. Our good Captain Bareback has never denied them.
Besides, we�re barely up to ten thousand unique visitors since June. That sure doesn�t feel like the whole world at your door, not compared to the hordes Sully claims to get.
Your fame doesn�t make you legitimate.
Good point to consider, Norah. You might have done well in your blogging Padawan stages to have heeded the words of Suli-Van, that your status as a Peeress of the Realm counts for very little here. You have to earn our respect as a blogger, not as a newspaper columnist. Sully at least knows that.
I was surprised, I must say, to learn how many non-journalist bloggers out there seem to suffer from an acute lack of self-esteem. They all assumed that when I used the word �riffraff,� I was talking about them. I wasn�t�that is, unless you�re the type of blogger who spreads lies and slanders, which, as it happens, most of the offended turned out not to be. No, I was talking about the bleak and envious few who�ve made guerrilla warfare against �legitimate targets� with whom they simply disagree (it really is no more than this) a habit and an indulgence for which I dearly hope they will be made to suffer legally in the future.
Ooooh! The last refuge of the net.scoundrel ... the threatened lawsuit! Boy, does that count as being �overlawyered?�
Norah, when you were a little girl, didn�t someone take you aside and tell you that when you�re in a hole, you STOP DIGGING?
posted by Sully 9/13/2002 03:12:00 AM
Thursday, September 12, 2002
IT�S NOT WHAT YOU SAY; IT�S WHO SAYS IT:
If you dug deep into yesterday�s Times, you would have found this little gem in Patrick Tyler6s story about the war on terror�s uncertainties.
But one old warrior faults America's leaders.
"We are standing on the cusp of something new and we don't know exactly what it is and there are some deep feelings of apprehension," said Lt. Gen. Samuel V. Wilson, a lifelong soldier and academic, now retired, who lied his way into the Army and World War II at age 16 and rose to be a senior figure in the American intelligence community, serving as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the late 1970's.
"I think people are beginning to lose a little confidence in our leadership because we see them milling around and not explaining things the way leaders are supposed to explain," he said.
As a military man, Mr. Wilson doesn't really see the war on terror as a war.
"It's a pseudo-war like the war against drugs, or the war against international criminals," he said. "It isn't a war in the classic sense that we understand and when we call it a war against international terrorism, we tend to legitimize someone when what we need to do is keep them pinned down as cornered criminals and not give them the status of co-belligerents."
posted by Sully 9/12/2002 06:40:00 PM
THOSE WHO REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO FORGET IT:
Neal Pollack has an eloquent take on Smalltown Boy's 9/11 meanderings. If you can't read the full text, Atrios has excerpted the funniest part.
All the same, we have a few nits to pick. We really wished we didn't have to; but since Sully refuses editing he wrote a piece that makes Norah Vincent (already reduced to arguing obscure points of Objectivism with Randroid bloggers) look like Hemingway by comparison.
First �irradiated dust� falling on Manhattan from the WTC? Since when? Is it possible he meant some other word?
And, of course, let's remember what the victims of 9/11 died for above all � the Sage of South Goodstone�s freedom to attack the Nameless Left:
Educated men and women who regularly find the slightest fault in democratic Western societies, vie with each other to provide excuses, justifications and rationalizations for the murderous tyrannies and blood-thirsty mobs of the Arab Middle East. In a welter of arguments, articles, op-eds and books, intellectuals are eagerly laying out the case that the murderers of 9/11 died for an explicable and justifiable cause, that the West itself is in part responsible for what was unleashed against it, that war can be avoided, that there is nothing but shades of gray in this complicated world
This is particularly interesting, in light of the Nation article he recently linked to, which suggests many times and in many ways that thinking on the American left is actually far more complicated than he depicts it here.
We could go on, but time is short right now.
BUT THEN ...:
He does, however, have to say this in his thoughts for today:
It occurs to me that my somewhat insistent view that we need to fight back against the roots of this horror might be misconstrued as a love or passion for war. I hope not.
All one can say is: Really? After a year of calling everyone to your left Fifth Columnists and shouting "Get on with it?" over the war on Iraq, this finally occurs to you?
SCHR�DER�S TOP SPY:
But does it necessarily follow that military action is necessary to prevent Saddam from using nukes? After all, we didn't have to invade the Soviet Union or China, did we?
(not, of course, to imply that Saddam would be inclined to keep arms agreements, but that we have a far greater retaliatory capacity than he does, and it seems to us that whatever else he may have done to Iraq he would like to be hailed as a victor while he is still alive. Sully should try to deal with the fact that Saddam held off using bio and chem weapons in the Gulf War because we told him he would have been nuked if he did).
posted by Sully 9/12/2002 10:11:00 AM
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
THIS DAY AGAIN:
Before we return to this blog from which we have been absent too long, we decided we'd address today and its meaning as it will be impossible to ignore the date above, and going from that straight into our examinations of Sullivan would entail too much of a cognitive discontinuity for it to be the pleasurable reading experience we strive to make it.
Yes, it's September 11. War is not over.
We look at postcards that show the diminished lower Manhattan skyline, claiming this to be �New York,� with no mention of the ghosts of those giant stereo speakers that still force their way in, and wonder how the publishers can live with themselves.
We recall the absolute numbness that came over us as we watched those towers fall on live morning TV, a moment when the sort of thing we would have been watching, Brent and Katie's aimless banter with this or that bonehead plugging their new film, never seemed so appealing and yet so remote, as we absorbed the knowledge that we had just seen hundreds of people die in one instant, the pleasant sun and crystal blue sky not dimming in the slightest as those great gray clouds wreathed the World Financial Center into something resembling images of London during the Blitz ... the sort of image we had grown up thinking safely belonged within the covers of coffee-table Life magazine compilations.
We urge you to take the time out today to remember.
But not the whole day if you can. For the families and loved ones of the deceased, yes, we more than understand.
The three thousand dead, however, would have wanted us to go out and shop for groceries, go fishing, rent videos, whatever ... to live! They can�t anymore.
To run from today is to let the terrorists win.
And now, back to the blog.
Let's roll! You all know who's in the cockpit ...
QUOD ERA DEMONSTRATUM:
Atrios deals with Sully�s belated, wishy-washy response to Lee Siegel�s �takedown� of him in Harper�s quite nicely, sparing us the task of pointing out the major factual errors and misrepresentations.
We will just add a few things.
First, as Sully certainly has to be aware, the article (or choice bits of it) is indeed online ... right here. In fact, when The Cursor linked to it last week, we recorded over 400 unique visitors ... our best day ever.
We�re not so na�ve yet as to believe that that had anything to do with Sully responding. But one can always dream.
Second, we�re sort of glad he did this because it allows us to point out his usual slimy tactic of ignoring his opponent's most serious charge against him to endlessly harp on something relatively minor and then make it look like he's being picked on.
What he ignores this time is Siegel's suggestion that he attacked Krugman at Big Pharma�s behest. It may be circumstantial, but it's there, and we'd think that a specific suggestion that he devoted his blog to the agenda of a supporter would be serious enough to warrant a leading, angry denial and accusation against Siegel, as well as crying over his damaged professional reputation.
But apparently that doesn't matter to the Blog Queen, or it's true, because he completely fails to mention it in his response, choosing instead to try to cozy up to Siegel by saying, in effect, �OK, you zinged me with a couple� for a few grafs(hint: Sully, he didn�t use rabbits because they are not known for their fascination with playing with useless discarded things), hoping he will have lost his readership before he has to get down to misrepresenting how much Charlie Francis gave him.
And when he gets to that, Sully shows his disingenuousness has been cultivated to that of a seasoned politician.
First, we couldn't find the entry where he praised Francis�s RUC efforts as cited by Signorile. Anyone who does, send us the link.
But then he says he fully disclosed the contribution on his website.
That belongs in the department of �literally true but technically misleading� � a phrase Smalltown Boy should recognize.
Yes, it was on his site but on a non-obvious subpage, not the Daily Dish. You had to both be looking for it and know what you were looking for. Nor was there a link to it from the blog when Francis was mentioned.
This might all be moot except for the fact that very recently, after the Harper�s piece came out, he took the time to mention John Ellis was both a friend and contributor while recommending Ellis's blog. If he did it now, he could have done it then.
Lastly there is the anti-Semitism. We might have considered that a stretch, but as we said, when you publish remarks by Camille Paglia implying unreasonable Jewish control over the major media without yourself breathing a word, consistently describe a Jewish practice as body mutilation and then make Jewish jokes all the time, people do start to wonder (and Martin Peretz takes notes).
IF YOU SAY SOMETHING NASTY ABOUT THE TIMES, AT LEAST GET IT RIGHT ...:
Atrios, having a good day, catches Sullivan in yet another boo-boo in his haste to dry up Raines.
Then Grady Olivier, at WarBlogger Watch, takes on Kittens�s attack on Susan Sontag.
Oh, by the way Atrios, we do have the cartoon (although we'd think it would be more appropriate to have Andy playing the horse, since that�s the way � uh huh! uh huh! � he likes it ... yeah, the terrorists really have won if we didn�t get that link in there today). If someone else doesn�t, we'd be happy to scan it for you.
HEY DAVID, GIVE US A SPOT!!:
Alterman has a damn good point.
"There�s a line, and Sullivan is over it, as both The New York Times Magazine, and The New Republic, however belatedly, came to understand. It is literally beyond my imagination what David Talbot and company could have been thinking in hiring him to, ahem, sully, their pages. If people�s consciences no longer allow them to support Salon as a result of Salon�s having chosen to give his lies and character assassinations the publications imprimatur, then Conason, of all people, should respect that fact.
BUT THEY SAID IT WAS OK WHEN CLINTON DID IT ...:
Josh Marshall debunks the latest Mighty Wurlitzer Spin, as promoted by Sully as well: that Clinton was pushing for war with Iraq four years ago, so the Democrats must only want to hurt Bush.
As he concludes: � ...the policy then on offer was fundamentally different from what's now being discussed. Supporting that one then and not supporting this one today means nothing.�
MUSLIM RAPE INITIATIONS ... NOT!
You may also remember some while back when Sully linked to some articles in the Sydney Morning Herald by a Janet Albrechtsen, claiming that endemic rape among Muslim teens in Australia was due to a culture that encouraged the offense as an initiation rite.
Again, WarBloggerWatch >has the story on how her credibility has been seriously challenged.
posted by Sully 9/11/2002 02:58:00 AM