"You're a funny man, Sully ...

that's why I'm going to kill you last."


Saturday, September 28, 2002


As we said he would, he jumped on the St. Mychal bandwagon. You read it here first.

What we didn�t expect, however, was that he would take the opportunity for some real stretchy Times bashing. So all of a sudden the ultra-lefty peacenik Grey Lady, the paper that did more for gay marriage a few weeks ago than Sullivan ever could in a thousand books, is to blame for skittishness about fully outing Judge?

Sully should put on enough testoterone on his chest to grow himself a pair of decent yads and take on, in his blog, Dennis Lynch, who has been actively peddling this �Judge was not a queer� line for quite some time (link courtesy of our archives, but originally from WarbloggerWatch). It could make a lot of difference on the right ... witness the crusade he made against Goodbye! Good Men!.

But maybe he�s afraid of getting these people mad at him?

(We also had a link to Naked Writing which took this down nicely, but our archives won�t come up right now)


Public Nuisance has it. There�s no explicit mention of Sully, but it�s applicable nonetheless.


(Our oh-so-clever nick for Eugene and his co-conspirator. Some of you should be able to figure it out).

Max Sawicky counters this nicely.


Is it us, or via the Wockner link, has anyone noted an increasing tendency on Sully�s part to stereotype and generalize about lesbians? The Blog Queen today describes the NGLTF as �anti-male,� a nice code word for �dykey,� especially since he�s noted in the past that it has had no male leadership in a number of years.

In his recent Provincetown Diarist for Marty, he also mentions the increasing number of �nesting and entrepreneurial lesbians� in his fave beach town, and even refers to �The ongoing culture clash between the more hedonistic gay men and the more serious-minded lesbians.�

Something else he said about the Sapphic a month or so ago sticks at the back of our minds, but we can�t recall it at present.

Sully, of course, would say that he doesn�t hate lesbians ... after all, as we know, there are some he likes.

But this increasing tendency to paint lesbians as a whole as dour, humorless and screechingly p.c. strikes us as no different, really, from the way that a number of Jewish men, as restrictions on their social mobility eased in the last century, offloaded onto Jewish women via popular culture stereotypes that had long been pasted on Jews as a whole � i.e., that they were greedy, ostentatious, pushy and obnoxious (Think almost every Jewish American Princess joke you�ve ever heard).

Keep that in mind next time he slams Richard Goldstein.


We can't even see how this Sontag Award meets even Smalltown Boy�s criteria ... at least not the quoted excerpt.

It has nothing to do with terrorism. The �equivalence� made is between US geopolitical hegemony and that of the Soviet Union. If you want to attack Ms. Roy for that, attack her for it. But don�t suggest it equates the US and Al-Qaeda.

In any event, here are some other bits from the piece for you to ponder:

What does [anti-Americanism] mean? That you're anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to free speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?

This sly conflation of America's music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the US government's foreign policy is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy. It's like a retreating army taking cover in a heavily populated city, hoping that the prospect of hitting civilian targets will deter enemy fire.

There are many Americans who would be mortified to be associated with their government's policies. The most scholarly, scathing, incisive, hilarious critiques of the hypocrisy and the contradictions in US government policy come from American citizens.


The US government says that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal, a cruel military despot who has committed genocide against his own people. That's a fairly accurate description of the man. In 1988, he razed hundreds of villages in northern Iraq and killed thousands of Kurds. Today, we know that that same year the US government provided him with $500m in subsidies to buy American farm products. The next year, after he had successfully completed his genocidal campaign, the US government doubled its subsidy to $1bn. It also provided him with high-quality germ seed for anthrax, as well as helicopters and dual-use material that could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

It turns out that while Saddam was carrying out his worst atrocities, the US and UK governments were his close allies.


Recently, the US played an important part in forcing India and Pakistan back from the brink of war. Is it so hard for it to take its own advice?


On Altercation today, Charles Pierce apologizes on behalf of all Catholics for Sully and Michael Kelly.

Also, scroll down to see who said this:

Incidentally, Lynne Stewart�s first big moment in the limelight came sometime in the �80s when she managed to get a nasty thug named Larry Davis (?) acquitted. Standing on the courthouse steps, she announced that society would now have to deal with �Black Rambos, not Black Sambos.� She made me long for the reasoned tones of Maddox and Mason.

Will Smalltown Boy give out the appropriate props?

There�s also some valid criticisms of Gore�s speech and the antiwar position that, chances are, Sully will never adopt, from a correspondent named �Stupid�

posted by Sully 9/28/2002 07:42:00 PM

Friday, September 27, 2002


Hesiod lives up to his blog�s original mission statement with an extensive excerpt from Sen. Gore�s speech during the Gulf War on our long-term goals. Seems to us it's the last word on whether he's really changed positions (and note the contrast with what our current chief executive was doing and thinking about at the time).


Unsurprisingly, The Blog Queen devotes himself to defending his good and great friend with no less than three items.

Noteworthy among this is the horn-tooting. It never crosses his mind that maybe Hitchens himself complained to the AP ... after all, the whole world reads him, as we all know (and this from the man who corrects so many of his own errors, when he bothers to do so, as if a thief in the night).

We also think the characterization is not entirely inapt. We�d complete his sentence, �Hitch's liberal credentials are so voluminous, his hostility to Toryism so profound, his independence so tenaciously guarded that ...� with �... all this has hardly been in evidence over the last four years.�

What, pray tell, ever happened to the Hitchens who did the ballsiest thing that we'd seen in a long time ... taking on Mother Teresa and her many personal myths and her somewhat anti-democractic politics? Will The Sage of South Goodstone mention that? We don�t think so.

Instead, his presentation of Hitchens shows that the two of them are birds of a feather, religion, sexuality and ideology notwithstanding: exiles from the margins of British society who found in America a place where, for a while at least, their irresistible impulse to social-climb could be passed off between libations as some sort of genuinely worthwhile contribution to the human race.

(And why, Sully, if you're so umbraged by this do you hed the next item �Another Liberal Shifts?� Huh?)

The Alterman item also needs revision. The penultimate sentence should read : �It�s about re-enacting your little adolescent psychodramas by alienating no less than three separate employers and publicly telling yourself it was all because they couldn�t handle the truth when they finally fire you.�


Lieven answers Smalltown Boy�s question:

It was, after all, Powell who, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared in 1992 that the US requires sufficient power 'to deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage'. However, the idea of pre-emptive defence, now official doctrine, takes this a leap further, much further than Powell would wish to go. In principle, it can be used to justify the destruction of any other state if it even seems that that state might in future be able to challenge the US. When these ideas were first aired by Paul Wolfowitz and others after the end of the Cold War, they met with general criticism, even from conservatives. Today, thanks to the ascendancy of the radical nationalists in the Administration and the effect of the 11 September attacks on the American psyche, they have a major influence on US policy.


'The road to Middle East peace lies through Baghdad' is a line that's peddled by the Bush Administration and the Israeli lobby. It is just possible that some members of the Administration really believe that by destroying Israel's most powerful remaining enemy they will gain such credit with Israelis and the Israeli lobby that they will be able to press compromises on Israel.

But this is certainly not what public statements by members of the Administration � let alone those of its Likud allies in Israel � suggest. Rumsfeld recently described the Jewish settlements as legitimate products of Israeli military victory; the Republican Majority Leader in the House, Dick Armey (a sceptic as regards war with Iraq), has advocated the ethnic cleansing ('transfer') of the Palestinians across the Jordan; and in 1996 Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (now a senior official at the Pentagon) advised Binyamin Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Peace Process and return to military repression of the Palestinians.


And while this web of ambition is megalomaniac, it is not simply fantasy. Given America's overwhelming superiority, it might well work for decades until a mixture of terrorism and the unbearable social, political and environmental costs of US economic domination put paid to the present order of the world.

As things stand, the American people would never knowingly support such a programme - nor for that matter would the US military. Even after 11 September, this is not by historical standards a militarist country; and whatever the increasingly open imperialism of the nationalist think-tank class, neither the military nor the mass of the population wishes to see itself as imperialist. The fear of casualties and of long-term overseas military entanglements remains intense. And all opinion polls suggest that the majority of the American public, insofar as it considers these issues at all, is far more interested than this Administration in co-operation with allies.

Besides, if the US economy continues to stagnate or falls sharply, the Republicans will most probably not even be in power after 2004. As more companies collapse, the Administration's links to corrupt business oligarchies will become more and more controversial. Further economic decline combined with bloated military spending would sooner or later bring on the full consequences of the stripping of the public finances caused by this Administration's military spending and its tax cuts for the rich. At that point, the financial basis of Social Security would come into question, and the Republican vote among the 'middle classes' could shatter.


But above all, perhaps, this coming together of the fundamentalist Right and hardline Zionism is natural, because they share many hatreds. The Christian Right has always hated the United Nations, partly on straight nationalist grounds, but also because of bizarre fears of world government by the Antichrist. They have hated Europeans on religious grounds as decadent atheists, on class grounds as associates of the hated 'East Coast elites', and on nationalist grounds as critics of unconstrained American power. Both sides share an instinctive love of military force. Both see themselves as historical victims. This may seem strange in the case of the American Rightists, but it isn't if one considers both the White South's history of defeat, and the Christian Right's sense since the 1960s of defeat and embattlement by the forces of irreligion and cultural change.

Oh, and guess what, for a Marxist he sounds just like Sullivan sometimes:

Already, the anti-semitism of some black leaders in the Democratic Party has contributed to driving many Jews towards the Republicans; and thanks to their allegiance to Israel, the liberal Jewish intelligentsia has moved a long way from their previous internationalism. This shift is highly visible in previously liberal and relatively internationalist journals such as the New Republic and Atlantic Monthly, and maybe even in the New Yorker. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that as a result the internationalist position in the Democratic Party and the US as a whole has been eviscerated.

The Democrats are well aware of this threat to their electorate. The Party as a whole has always been strongly committed to Israel. On Iraq and the war against terrorism, its approach seems to be to avoid at all costs seeming �unpatriotic.�


The younger intelligentsia meanwhile has also been stripped of any real knowledge of the outside world by academic neglect of history and regional studies in favour of disciplines which are often no more than a crass projection of American assumptions and prejudices (Rational Choice Theory is the worst example). This has reduced still further their capacity for serious analysis of their own country and its actions. Together with the defection of its strongest internationalist elements, this leaves the intelligentsia vulnerable to the appeal of nationalist messianism dressed up in the supposedly benevolent clothing of �democratisation.�

And finally this point, which we doubt Sully really read all the way to (maybe it was time to smear himself with Androgel again, as his concluding graf was insufficiently belligerent):

Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively. What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind.


Before Sullivan waxes so rhapsodic about GI Joe the Clockpuncher again, he (and you) should read Nick Kristof�s column today about just what those guys are going to have to put up with to secure geopolitical Nirvana while Captain Bareback watches from his beach cottage.


Doubtless we will hear from Sullivan soon on this cause.

posted by Sully 9/27/2002 10:46:00 AM

Thursday, September 26, 2002


We briefly reviewed his Sunday Times piece last night and had trouble staying awake.

We chalked it up to the lateness of the hour and decided to try again this morning.

We still had trouble. Eventually we realized that it was yet another example of Sully at his laziest.

There is really nothing in this that wasn�t, in a much more compact form, in Chris Suellentrop�s Slate piece on this same subject a while back. It�s also mildly amusing how, when he has to be teamed up with Bush, everything Sullivan hates about Blair is suddenly golden and virtuous.

It's also worth reading against this year-old Anne Applebaum piece (and we must disagree with MWO: whatever her British journalistic associations, we still find this Brit-ified American�s writing on foreign policy to be far more informed and thoughtful than the Americanized Brit).

A sample:

Perhaps Mr Blair will want to create an international legal system in the wake of this war, or a permanent international police force, neither of which the Americans will like. Or perhaps he'll decide, at some later date, that the war in Afghanistan - or maybe the subsequent war in Iraq � is not contributing as much to the growth of �interdependence� as he thought it would. Because Blair is fighting this war for his own reasons, and not for America's reasons, he may be less than enthusiastic if it takes a direction that doesn't suit his vision. This may not ever happen of course, but Americans should be warned: at some point we may all find out that we are not quite such good friends with Mr Blair as we thought.


Speaking of the Torygraph, here's what their diplomatic editor had to say about Blair�s speech:

... [T]he 50-page document does not answer the nagging question in the debate over the looming war with Iraq: �Why now?�


Whatever the vocabulary, there is little in the dossier to suggest that Iraq poses a new and imminent military threat.

It does not argue that Saddam is preparing to attack either his neighbours or the West, or that he is about to obtain a nuclear bomb.


If Iraq can smuggle enough weapons-grade fissile material as well as some critical components, Iraqi scientists could assemble a bomb within one or two years. Overall, however, the timescale is a less alarmist estimate than assessments by IISS or the US government.


... [T]he dossier acknowledges that much of the evidence is open to differing interpretations.


The report carries a new photograph of a missile test site at al-Rafah, where Iraq has built an engine test stand for a missile with a range of more than 1000 km � able to reach most of Turkey and southern Greece, both Nato members, and virtually all of Iran. But it says that �if sanctions remain effective,� Iraq might not be able to make the longer range missile for five years.

posted by Sully 9/26/2002 12:04:00 PM


From the latest New York Press:

Best Website Parody We Wish Somebody Would Do

Signorile Did Not Write This: Didn�t you think Hitch�s take on Howie�s interview about MoDo�s column on Rummy was fabulous? Who has a more masculine jawline, me or the Mickster? Does my facial hair make me look fat? Yay Dubya! Whoo-hoo, Condi! Didn�t you love Pod�s editorial about Dick and Kenny and goo-goo gaa-gaa ooga booga la la la blah blah blah...

(Thanks Rittenhouse!)

posted by Sully 9/26/2002 11:41:00 AM


Deep in the morass of today�s trite political analysis (in which he is forced to admit that Tom Daschle has a legitimate point and that there is at least some grounds to support Bush�s timing on the war vote) is this tidbit: �He decided early on me-too-ism, so as to return the debate to such vital matters as free pills for seniors.�

Hmm. We detect an echo of a similarly phrased, equally dismissive remark made by Sully�s drinking buddy Jonah Goldberg, the �editor� of National Review Online, that Jim Capozzola pounced all over a while back ... after all, prescription drug reform has only been a major issue since at least 2000.

For someone who by his own estimate takes 30 pills a day to keep his incurable disease from getting terminal, paid for by the health plan of an employer he long since alienated, to talk that way is ... well, what we've come to expect from Smalltown Boy.


Noah�s piece is basically a longer, more detailed version of what Max Sawicky said yesterday, so we'll leave it at that. But what he does add is some of the political context:

Conservative motives for attacking Gore's Commonwealth Club speech couldn't be more transparent: He may end up the Democratic nominee for president in 2004. But Chatterbox also sees a deeper need for conservatives, who tend to be Iraq hawks, to deny that it's possible to take a hard line against Iraq and still think the time and circumstances of Bush's war plans make no sense.

Atrios is the one out in the lead on this one today, linking to Joe Conason in Salon and running this excerpt:

Sullivan speciously charges the Clinton administration with "eight years of indolence and passivity" on Iraq. He knows that as soon as the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out of Iraq in December 1998, Clinton directed heavy airstrikes at Saddam's installations -- without concern for the fact that cheap politicians and their echoes like Sullivan would falsely accuse the president, against all the available evidence, of "wagging the dog."

Back then, Sullivan wrote the following Chomsky-like sentence in a column for a London newspaper: "The many Iraqi civilians being wounded or killed in Operation Desert Fox surely deserve some assurance that they are regrettable victims of a just war, not missile fodder for a narcissist's final gamble."


Atrios also brings this statement by Edmund Stoiber from just before Der Election to our attention:

Aware that Schroeder's anti-war rhetoric is proving a vote winner, Stoiber toughened his own stance on Thursday.

In a television interview, he said that, if elected, he might bar U.S. forces from using their German bases if Bush decided on an attack without U.N. backing, Reuters news agency reported.


Neal does it again:

My life has certainly changed since I began using applicable testosterone. Where I once ate three meals a day, now I eat four. My writing output has increased by at least a page an hour, and I find that my opinions are sharper, my observations more cogent, my ability to accurately quote George Orwell more potent than ever. I'm increasingly able to see that all opposition to our war with Iraq is foolish and futile, and I will kick the ass of anyone who disagrees with me. Man, I just want to beat up other guys all the time!

(Memo to Scoobie Davis: It's a joke!!)


Only now has The Nation become unreadable? Hitchens showed his current leanings long ago, and we stopped reading his column way back when.

Oh well, now that he has more free time to spend with Sullivan, we advise those of you in the DC area to stock up on liquor starting tomorrow, because once the two of them get going a full bottle of spirits may be hard to find.


Noah also addresses this point as well:

In the Commonwealth Club speech, Gore said he �felt betrayed� when Bush p�re ended the Gulf War without deposing Saddam. Apparently, that claim isn't true. In April 1991 Gore said on the Senate floor that Bush �should not be blamed� for Saddam's survival because it was �universally accepted� that �combat should stop� once Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait. These are obviously not the words of somebody who feels betrayed.

Hesiod goes even further, giving you links to all the appropriate source material, and aptly summing it up:

Gore wasn't talking about not seeking to remove Saddam as part of the Gulf War. He was talking about then President Bush's decision to let Saddam Hussein brutally suppress the post-war Iraqi uprisings that Bush himself had encouraged.

In addition, he reminds of what Noah discovered was the ultimate source of the claim: a Republican National Committee memo. Real credible source, that.


Jeez, Sully, do you have to rub it in everyone�s face (and brain, and lungs) that you�re owned by a tobacco lobbyist?


David Ehrenstein, a longtime gay activist and fellow Sullivan agoniste, most recently seen haunting the comments section at Eschaton, now has his own blog. We�re sure we�ll be linking aplenty.


Googling this time turns up the recent link to us of Bruce Garrett, who writes about Sully�s recent "let the working class fight the wars!" email, taking the high heat to Sullivan:

SullyWatch cattily observes, "We always knew those muscles were just for show." Well...what else? In the servant classes muscles are for work. In the Master classes they'd pretty much have to be plumage.

Andrew, Andrew, you can play American all you like, but you're not one, and if this is the best you can understand us, then you'll never be one either. Other nations may have their military cast, but here in the United States of America we have citizen soldiers. Yes, we've come a long way from Washington's ragtag army, but that has been this country's working military hypothesis since its founding. Ours is a civilian army, and that means, in principal, if not literal terms, that the army is us. We. The People. The men and women in uniform are not our servants. They are our neighbors. They are our Fathers and Mothers. They are our Brothers and Sisters. They are our Friends and Lovers. I'm sure this fact is probably still tallied as evidence of American primitivism by the milk tea peers on your native shores, where having lower classes to clean up after the mess the lords make is regarded as a law of nature. But there's a reason why our founders placed the power to declare war, not with the commander in chief, but in the hands of the one house of congress with the shortest term, and no I don't expect the likes of you to ever regard that as sensible.

We owe it to them, our Fathers and Mothers, our Brothers and Sisters, our Friends and Lovers, our neighbors in uniform, to listen to their warnings about the cost of war. And we owe it to them, god damn it we owe it to them, not to send any of them into a war which we ourselves would not care to fight.

Somebody, please, the next time this court sycophant questions the patriotism of an American, spit in his face.

(Garrett has later corrected his error about only one house of Congress having the power to declare war)

posted by Sully 9/26/2002 01:49:00 AM

Wednesday, September 25, 2002


�I've noticed recently a rhetorical device employed by �news analysts,� like Patrick Tyler of the New York Times, to spin the news their way. That's the use of the term �many.��


Apparently even his PowerBook will only put up with putting so much of his drivel on the web.


�Yes, I wrote that. God, I'm sorry.�


By waiting a day or so (thanks to a flaky connection), we had the benefit of being able to look over others� critiques of his commentary (if you want to call it that) on Gore�s Iraq speech (Atrios sums up much of it here, with a good sample of both sides ... warbloggers, Freepers, Max, and a surprising take from Jack Kemp. Neal Pollack, as usual, parodies our boy).

Max Sawicky had the most perceptive remarks, addressing Sullivan�s remarks nicely:

The deeper point is that the Right fails to appreciate that Gore is in principle more interventionist than Bush. Gore has not renounced an industrial-strength effort to destroy Saddam. He is in fact proposing a more comprehensive commitment to that same end, one which more sensibly entails the prior neutralizing of Al Queda and the construction of an international consensus.

To us, his most telling remarks betray a real fear that war skeptics have a point on at least one issue:

Now he wants us to wait even further, claiming that the administration has abandoned Afghanistan, while vast sums of U.S. money are being expended on rebuilding the country

Uh, make that read �Vast sums have been promised.� Hamid Karzai has long been asking when the checks will get there.

Aside from which, read the brand-new blog at his old magazine (funny how the Blog Queen took a day to mention this ... perhaps it would remind his readers that he did not spring fully-muscled from the brain of Zeus as he seems to like to think) for a less cheery take on how the powers that be see things in Iraq, vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

Also there is the question: can we spend the vast sums of money at the same time that will be necessary to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously? Even assuming the EU picks up most of the tab, as it probably will?

Bush is merely seeking to enforce the U.N. resolutions the Clinton-Gore administration allowed to become a mockery. And most Americans back him.

Hmm. The text of the resolution submitted to Congress, it seems to us, goes a little further than just the UN resolutions (Of course, remember too that Smalltown Boy was part of the �UN doesn�t matter� chorus a couple of months back).

It might also serve to remind The Sage of South Goodstone that, as the counter-dossier released by Labor MPs today notes, it was we who caused a problem a few years ago when we said sanctions and embargoes would remain as long as Saddam was in power, regardless of whether Iraq complied with all resolutions or not (Lots of interesting stuff there ... check it out).

And �most Americans� back him? He might want to read over this telling little item Atrios found, which frankly surprised even us (given the geographical area it came from).

... There are few judgment calls I'm prouder of than having picked Bush over Gore two years ago

Nope. You mean, �There are few judgement calls I�m prouder of than having slavishly done a 180-degree turn and deciding to slavishly kiss Bush ass, especially seeing as to how badly I trashed him during the primaries�


What�s amazing is how much Sully tries to stack the debate in his own favor. By reducing the issue to �Does Saddam Hussein have or is he close to having weapons of mass destruction? And if he is close to gaining them, what should we do about it?� he elides entirely (as if there could be more than one answer to the second question, and as if Sully were beyond arguing the first).

Well, guess what, in the Gulf War he had WMDs. We told him not to use them or we would feel free to use ours. He kept them in the closet.

TBogg also takes issue with his claim that Krugman spent most of his column correcting errors, making in the process an observation that we often have as well:

Maybe someone should explain to Andy Sullivan that, when you write a blog and provide links, that sometimes...just sometimes, people are actually going to go to those links.


Sully dear, it wasn�t about your criticism of the Times and you know it. It was about you deciding you could ignore that rule about journalists (well, we all know you're only one in the nominal sense) not being the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of large public interests (as the next piece amply demonstrates). And being a sexual hypocrite, besides.

As you put it so well ...

But when a journalist on the public payroll is so evidently biased ... Do they really think we can't see through this stuff?


From a writer to Eric Alterman:

How very interesting that Christopher Hitchens has coined the all-purpose epigram for just about any critique of Andrew Sullivan. �A fool reading closely and in search of heresy is probably not all that attentive.� It IS all about the rigidity of the lens that filters the stimulus, isn�t it?

Steve Clark, Albany NY.

posted by Sully 9/25/2002 04:38:00 AM

Monday, September 23, 2002


For the analogy to hold, Saddam would have had to have assimilated the entire Middle East save Israel by now.

And Hitler would have been funded by the US government during the Spanish Civil War.


However he tries to spin it, the story was that the SPD�s victory was uncertain ... until Schr�der came right out and said that he would not support a war on Iraq.

Given that Sully routinely flamb�es the Democrats for not taking a clear position, he might want to consider the implications.


Once again, other bloggers remind us that Sully has huge problems with representing material to which he provides a link accurately.

New blogger TBogg calls Sullivan out. He notices that Smalltown Boy carefully fudged his words to make a noticeable lead among young men look like one among under-44s as a whole.

But the same site shows that among women in that same age bracket, the numbers are pretty much reversed.

We like his take on it:

So. What have we learned today? First, Andy Sullivan is not very good at math. Secondly, he "shades" the truth, and not very well. And lastly, if you come across one of Andy's personal ads looking for you know what and he promises a huge package...expect a one percent increase above the norm. That's hardly worth getting off the couch for.

If you still don�t know what he�s talking about, click here.

Matthew Yglesias, working independently, also picked up on this and adds this observation:

I wonder why. Could it be that Republican attempts to rollback the many advanced toward gender equity of the past several decades don't sit well with women? Could it be that young women, in particular, don't appreciate efforts to use heavy-handed government regulation to ruin their sex lives? I wonder.

posted by Sully 9/23/2002 10:48:00 AM

Sunday, September 22, 2002


Hardly had we finished our last posts when we checked out Public Nuisance, and found that Alex had made this point regarding the excerpted tidbit from Bush I�s mems regarding the Gulf War:

Doesn't this quote prove pretty much the opposite of what it's being cited to argue? What is more significant here than the offhand hypothetical is the fact that one of the first officials Bush I contacted during the crisis was his UN Ambassador, and it was that conversation, rather than one with the Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that gets mentioned in the memoirs. I have a strong suspicion that Dubya has hardly ever spoken directly to his UN Ambassador without going through Powell.

posted by Sully 9/22/2002 04:36:00 AM


Brad DeLong gets one in at Sully regarding his ideas of military-civilian relations:

I hate it when the misdeeds of right-wing politicians and the miswords of right-wing ideologues serve as object lessons pointing out the deep truths of the great right-wing thinkers ...

I hate it when right-wing ideologues complete misperception of the bond between us and our soldiers--their mistaking of them for our mercenary tools--reinforces Edmund Burke's warnings about the dangers inherent in a social system ruled by exchange and by self-interest to the derogation of charity, honor, or solidarity.

Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are not our servants. They are not our employees (although we do (under)pay them). They do not put their lives in harm's way out of selfish calculations of self-interest. They do not do what they do because we pay them.

They are our defenders. And we respect and honor them.


Neal Pollack, whose parodies of Sullivan on his blog have recently gotten a lot of links from us and others, talks to Dawn Olsen here about this and other things.

Quote we like:

Neal Pollack: I try to be sexually ambiguous in the column. Well, obviously I'm hetero, but I try to be at least bi-curious. You can't parody Sullivan without having some gay stuff in there. He's not my only target, but his site gives me fresh grist every day...

Dawn: I avoid him like the plague anymore - simply because we have nothing whatsoever in common.


Time won't correct itself because that little detail is far from the most damning thing in the story (scroll down a bit ... this is what we wanted to link to earlier in the week).


As we learned recently, and as most people who actually get emails from him in response to their criticism will tell you, Smalltown Boy is surprisingly candid sometimes.

As one reader, Steve Simels, tells us:

Early on in his blog career, I used to exchange reasonably polite e-mails with him, since at that point I still labored under the misapprehension that he was merely misguided, not fundamentally dishonest. That all changed rather quickly, after the election, and his bizarre take on it. Finally, I said "I'm going to give you the honest Republican test. If Gore and Bush's situation in Florida had been exactly reversed, do you think the Supreme Court would have made the same decision.?" To which he replied "Probably not, but they did the right thing anyway because Gore doesn't deserve to be present." Swear to god, he actually said that.

Nice to see Sully has kept one aspect of his Britishness completely intact from all those corrupting American influences: his belief in some sort of hereditary divine right as the main criterion of leadership.

Steve also goes at it with Sullivan here over John Fund.

posted by Sully 9/22/2002 04:25:00 AM

Powered by Blogger


All material on this site copyrighted by author or authors.



Blogging the Blog Queen


“appl[ying] a magnifying glass to Andrew Sullivan’s performing-flea antics” – James Wolcott, Vanity Fair, April 2004.

Passionate rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan's frequent rants.

The Guardian

sullywatch AT

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More


There Is No Crisis: Protecting the Integrity of Social Security

Also see:

Smarter Andrew Sullivan (on hiatus, alas)

More blogs about Andrew Sullivan.

And for satire:

Neal Pollack (on hiatus as well)

Our inspiration:

Media Whores Online (presently out to pasture, but hopefully to return soon now that they are needed again)

Other watchers:


WarBlogger Watch

LGF Watch




DeCal (Cal Thomas)



The Daily Howler

Media Matters


The small village of bloggers who try to keep Sullivan honest (among other things):


Democratic Veteran

By the Bayou


Best of Both Worlds

Steve Brady

Other blogs of interest:



The Daily Kos

The Rittenhouse Review

Roger Ailes


Max Sawicky

Very Very Happy

Talking Points Memo



No More Mister Nice Blog

Steve Gilliard



Abu Aardvark

Ted Barlow (now at

Crooked Timber)

CalPundit (now at the Washington Monthly as Political Animal)

David Ehrenstein

Brad Delong

World O’ Crap

Tom Tomorrow

Oliver Willis

skippy the bush kangaroo

Public Nuisance

Bruce Garrett

are you effin’ kidding me?

Light of Reason


Onanism Today

The Suicide Letters

The Antic Muse (now Wonkette)

Sadly, No!


Anonymous Blogger

Scoobie Davis


Baghdad Burning

Whiskey Bar

Busy Busy Busy

We Report, You Deride


The Tooney Bin

Adam Kotsko

Nasty Riffraff

A Brooklyn Bridge

Suburban Guerrilla

Dave Cullen

Approximately Perfect

Trust me, you have no idea how much I hate Bush.

Beautiful Atrocities




Also worth checking out


The Cursor

Journal of American Politics

The George Bush AWOL Project

The Daily Kos



Greatest Hits (ours):


The Alaskan climate graph examined

Proof positive that Sullivan cannot, and should not, be trusted as a journalist to get his facts right.


The fisking of Norah Vincent

How we drove her out of Blogistan almost all by ourselves.


Excerpts from Lee Siegel's 2001 Harper's piece

Online here exclusively.


Why we blog the way we blog

A reply to some legitimate and friendly criticisms from Andrew Edwards


Why we blog the way we blog, Part II.

A reply to some of the same criticisms from the less friendly (back then) Arthur Silber


Bush-hating and proud of it

Our response to David Brooks.


Who Was That Masked Man?

The Horse remembered.


How the media lynched O.J. Simpson

Off-topic and our most controversial post ever.


Journalists behaving badly, updated.

Our wedding gift to Ruth Shalit, former TNR It Girl




Eve Tushnet's classic zinger

Sullivan has never quite been put in his place like this. Even Mickey Kaus thought it was funny.


"Bush reveals his poisonous colours"

Diane E. goes digging through the memory hole and finds a Times of London column Sullivan would prefer be forgotten.


The Datalounge list of potential titles for his memoirs

As reposted by Atrios


"The Princess of Provincetown"

Jim Capozzola goes further in that direction than we would ever dare.


Sullivan urges the Bush Administration to lie to the public

Brendan and Ben catch him in the act.


The Washington Times: An irredeemably left-wing rag

Bob Somerby shows the consequences of Sullivan's own logic of media bias


The Central Tenets of the Blogosphere

Derived from Sullivan’s blogging by s.z. of World O’ Crap and posted as a comment at Sadly, No!