Andy’s List
Citing Rod Dreher’s list of abandoned certainties in the face of the Iraq disaster, Andrew Sullivan titillates us with a promise to work up a list of his own. Well, I wouldn’t hold my breath in Sullivan’s case: after having done more than his bit in whipping up war hysteria against Iraq, and witch-hunting opponents of the war as bi-coastal “fifth column” in support of “the terrorists,” the former editor of The New Republic and blogger-par-excellence over at The Atlantic surely has a much longer list than practically anyone other than George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the New York Times editors who let Judy Miller’s tripe spill onto the front page of the Old Grey Lady. Lest this blog entry turn into a massive multi-volume work, then, I’ll just limit myself to a few suggested items for Senor Sullivan’s list of don’ts:
1) Don’t advocate a nuclear attack against a country unless you’re really really sure they deserve it.
2) Don’t listen to a thing Christopher Hitchens has to say—the man is just as unhinged now as you were then.
3) Stop smearing Antiwar.com—it doesn’t look good now that you’re trying to assert your antiwar credentials.
4) Remember when you attacked the poet Frank Bidart, whose work you interpreted as treasonous and “pro-terrorist”? As an act of contrition, how about an apology?
5) The next time you find yourself agreeing with Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, and Bill Kristol, stop, take a deep breath—and reconsider your position.
Iraq war
Comments
most people who knew nothing about foreign policy figured out iraq was gong to be a disaster a couple months after the invasion at most. so sullivan is about 4 years behind the times. that’s how on top of things you have to be to be fashionable in the mainstream blogosphere. I heard him on dennis pragers horrible radio show not too long ago. he completely folded and pretty much begged the old socialist for forgiveness
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sorry to go off-topic, but the previous comment mentioned Dennis Prager, and referred to him as a socialist. I have no argument with this, but rather, a curiosity.
This is the most recent example I’ve seen of a guest who has appeared with notorious atheists and libertarians Penn & Teller on their show Bullshit (which I LOVE) being referred to as a socialist. My curiosity is about why libertarians would use socialists to support their principles, though I presume they may have been chosen for their atheistic beliefs, and the devotion to reason (rather than faith) that such a belief implies.
If I am right about that, then why would a socialist appear on a libertarian’s show, lending support to a libertarian cause, when socialism is defined by central authority? Perhaps even socialists can see that what we have going in government now, still fails to meet the dreams and desires of outspoken socialist human beings, who welcome a libertarian government, which would at least allow them the freedom to pursue their own brand of socialism in their own life choices.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.