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

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


Friday, July 15, 2005


Comments from John Whiteside and Jo Fish on Sully’s self-congratulations. From the latter:
I notice that he claims no credit for the Internet Adult Personal Ad, however.
(link added)

Oh, and we shouldn’t let this other post over at Democratic Veteran go without being linked or quoted in part, either:
Always keeping in mind that La Sullivina would get down on all fours and lick Preznit Horse Fluffer’s shoes to a mirror shine at a moments notice, it's no surprise that he holds his master to a different standard than he does anyone else (especially Clinton, for whom his hatred eclipses even the most rabid of those who thoroughly dislike Beloved Leader). Andrew Sullivan: a man with the intellectual integrity of Elmer Fudd and common sense of Sylvester the Cat.

posted by Sully 7/15/2005 01:25:00 AM

Thursday, July 14, 2005


The Dilpazier Aslam piece is hardly the defense of Islamo-fascism Sullivan wants it to be, unless you’re a regular commenter at Little Green Goofballs, where one would imagine Sullivan got the link (we’re not bothering to check; we just know). It might simply be summed as saying that younger British Muslims are silently seething at the longtime refusal of the religious leaders to speak out on behalf of their fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world done wrong by either their own governments or governments allied to theirs.

In fact, Sullivan should be happy that Aslam explicitly refuses the opportunity to indulge himself in anti-Americanism.

But whither the other allegations? It would not surprise you that Sullivan gets them not directly from the source, but from another blogger who probably Googled till he found something he could use, carefully denuded of context.

And what do we find in the original piece? Here’s the full quote used to justify “world-dominant Islamic state”:
Islam demands that we are leaders in science; we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically. This is why we find that in Islamic history the Muslims were the most advanced in the fields of science including optometry, biology and mathematics.
OK, you can take that “militarily and politically” to be a call for imperialistic conquest, which Islamic history is not without. But note that he and his coauthor says “lead” not “rule,” which we take to be a carefully chosen distinction. In fact, is there anything all that different between his description of such a state and ... the present position of the United States of America (Bush notwithstanding?)

Sullivan might, if he did not want to be accused of bullshitting his remaining readers, discuss the whole of the piece, in which the writers cite Muslim tradition and the words of Muhammad and others to inveigh against corporal punishment of children, religious education that consists solely of rote memorization of the Qur’an and other texts, forced and/or arranged marriages, nationalism and tribalism and technophobia.

They conclude:
We should never confuse tradition and Islam. It is Islam that we must follow, not traditions that contradict it and often emanate from Hinduism and other religions. We should never assume that something is Islamic because it is commonly practiced.
There is a word in Islamic tradition for this: ijtihaad, which (yes) comes from the same root as jihaad. It means, within a religiious context, diligence, and is often invoked by more liberal Islamic thinkers.

Sullivan has no excuse for not knowing this, because it’s a favorite of his favorite Muslim writer, Irshad Manji. It sounds to us like she and Mr. Aslam could have a very pleasant lunch together.

And shame on Sullivan for collaborating in this misrepresentation.

Now, to Aslam’s supposed call for a war to destroy Israel. The article in question spends a lot of time, as most journalism does, recounting the facts behind the story. Only near the end does the opinionating start. And one supposes this sentence is Exhibit A:
The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State.
Now, you can read things into this if you want. You have to know that some Muslims who believe in this reestablished caliphate believe also that all land under Muslim rule in that time must be reconquered before any sort of equilibrium could be reached with the rest of the world. That would include present-day Israel (as well as southern Spain, which makes this thesis sort of, uh, problematic). In that sense you can read that sentence as calling for the destruction of Israel.

But it is never explicitly stated as such in the piece. Much of the invective in it, in fact, is directed at a favorite target of Sullivan’s as well — the late Yasser ‘arafat, whom Aslam, from the comfort of a London apartment, accuses of “play[ing] the role of a willing puppet with much zeal.”

The only explicit demand Aslam makes in the piece, in fact, is for Palestinians not to give up on al-Aqsa, a site of contention for many years now.

Oh, and why no link to that claim that he “openly boasts
that his loyalty is not to any nation-state”? (As if he were the first to make such a statement. As if that were peculiar to Muslims).

We would, we agree, like to see Mr. Aslam clarify some of these things. But for now Sullivan has gone too far in that direction.

posted by Sully 7/14/2005 01:48:00 PM

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

02657 BLUES:

It’s often fun to mock some of Sully’s P-Town riffs, but he’s not making it up. John Whiteside has a long meditation on the same subject that makes for interesting comparisons.

posted by Sully 7/13/2005 11:36:00 PM

Monday, July 11, 2005


Does anybody else find it as amusing or sad as we do that the Sage of South Godstone seems to feel he has to explain his countrymen to us, as if we didn’t all speak (or at least write) the same language, as if Britain were one of those obscure African countries that never get covered in the American media?

posted by Sully 7/11/2005 08:03:00 PM

The Orwellian fixing of language — by going in and changing online wordage after the fact — is particularly amusing.

He’d know, wouldn’t he?

posted by Sully 7/11/2005 08:02:00 PM


John Whiteside puts the shoe on Sullivan’s other foot.
Funny how nobody asks, for example, why American Catholics weren’t stronger in condemning IRA terrorism, or why American Protestants were stronger in their condemnation of the Oklahoma City bombing. I’m not sure why it is that the average Muslim living in London is somehow more accountable for al Qaeda than anybody else, or why condemning the attacks isn’t enough. But I guess Sullivan is just trying to be the rational face of these folks.
(Link to Little Green Goofballs removed)

And Jo Fish shows how Sully’s fundamental ideology hasn’t really changed.

posted by Sully 7/11/2005 07:52:00 PM

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!