Andrew Sullivan calls for prosecuting Bush et al for war crimes.

[Hamlette]

What the Bush administration wants is to introduce vagueness to get away with exactly the same barabarism they have deploying illegally for the past five years. They must be stopped. And eventually, they must be prosecuted for war crimes.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/bush_fights_on_.html

We've been watching some conservatives "turn" on Bush but I didn't think we hear them actually call for treating him as a war criminal.

[stepnw1f]

1. It's Election Time

I expect Republicans to do this.... hell, look at what they have already done.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

3. When a repug changes sides they do it with a vengeance!

Kinda like an ex-smoker that is militant over smelling tobacco smoke, ex-repugs go for the throat. David Brock and Arianna Huffington are two that come to mind. If Andrew Sullivan is calling out Georgy & The Cabal on their misdeeds than hell, has indeed, frozen over.

Every time a former repug comes over from the dark side the neocons and rethugs are forced en masse to don their neck braces from the whiplash! Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson once upon a time repugs in good standing are now all traitors TO THE CAUSE. I know there are others, just can't dredge their names up right now.

Welcome, Andrew, how does it feel to be back on the side of goodness, honesty and democracy for all people? Tell your friends.

[stepnw1f]

7. My Point is...

I don't believe him or any of them. They may be against him now, but only to get as far away from him because of poll numbers. There is an election coming... this is why. Not for any other reason.

[Hamlette]

12. Sullivan started his turn away from Bush with the gay marriage thing...

I thought he'd forget and forgive but Abu Ghraib which came to light in April 2004 really freaked him out. I've read his blog for years in an effort to understand the other side.

You're right, when they flip, they get mad.

I don't believe many of them but I don't think Huffington or Brock will go back. I'm not so sure about Sullivan but he voted for Kerry and has been pissed at Bush (and getting more pissed by the day) and the religious right for four years. I'm willing to give him a chance.

His blog, by the way, is one of the more interesting ones around. He links to some stuff the liberal blogs don't see. He is so pissed off about his religion and his political views being hijacked by this group he points out the falacies in their arguments from a point of view we don't have.

Yeah, once in awhile he still missed the point but on balance, he's well on his way into the light.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Dissenting

First of all, Andrew Sullivan is not an American citizen.

Secondly, he is not running for public office in any country and has no need to lick his finger and hold it to the wind.

Thirdly, if he were concerned about Mr. Bush's agenda going down the tubes, calling Bush a war criminal -- just like I do -- is a funny way to generate support for it.

[charlyvi]

19. Sullivan is a naturalized citizen.....

according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Naturalized_citizens_of_the_United_States&from=Seversky%2C+Alexander+de

Also, he voted for Kerry.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Thank you

Nevertheless, that was the least of my points. Sullivan is an opinion maker, not an office seeker. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, Sullivan usually acts like knows the difference.

[charlyvi]

23. Wasn't disagreeing with you....

just clearing up your first point.

:-)

[WhiteTara]

28. thanks for the clarification

:)

[POAS]

9. Add David Brock to your list

There may be hope for Andy Sullivan yet.

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. Michael Lind, Pat Buchanan (iffy) and the Nixon guy (John Dean?)

John McLaughlin (more of a moderate Democrat, or what Michael Lind would call a "Reagan Catholic", but...) railing against "Gitmo torture chambers"!

[dkofos]

2. I agree

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Is he an American citizen yet?

[Solly Mack]

5. He's right...Bush wants to confuse the matter to get away with it

Been saying it for a while now

[w13rd0]

6. Sullivan has been moving this direction for a while now...

...I don't expect him to become a liberal (though I've been surprised before), but he's been moving for a while now, since a bit before the 2004 elections.

[tsuki]

8. I think it is time that the US watched the HBO special, Mr.

Conservative, about Senator Barry Goldwater. As the father of the conservative movement, I think that a lot of eyes would be opened. Conservatives today are 180 degrees right of him. From what I've heard, the HBO special points this out.

[indepat]

10. Barbarism to keep us safe or barbarism for sport?

[UTUSN]

11. What does Andy know NOW that we always knew back THEN? n/t

[Selatius]

13. Andrew Sullivan et al. are trying to "out anti-war" the anti-war left.

They know the anti-war sentiment is prevailing, so they're trying to co-opt some of it to diffuse its effect on the election.

[Hugin]

30. Ding! Ding! Ding!

You got it.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

59. Huh?

Perhaps you don't know that Sullivan is hoping for a Democratic win in this election. Facts are important, ma'am.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. He must be a leftwingcommiepinkoterrorist.

:sarcasm:

[Rageneau]

16. I don't celebrate right-wing converts like Sullivan because...

as far as I'm concerned, they showed their true natures and actual worldviews when they were in the enemy camp. They did not come over to our side because they saw that we were right; they deserted because their leaders were turning into Caligulas and they fled to save their own butts. I'm glad for Andy's vote, but his opinion means squat to me.

[MissWaverly]

17. is this the same man that told me the better candidate won

in 2004, and I should just get over it. I think I am in shock.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Everybody makes mistakes

Not all have the courage to admit them.

[MissWaverly]

26. Well, no although I usually agree Jack Rabbit

The problem is that we, the American people, were sold Bush as a capable leader and one tale
after another has been a disaster. The media and the pundits were his "base" and warbled
his praises to the American people while constantly criticizing the democrats. This came
home to me with Ann Richards. How did a experienced politician with a successful time in
office go down to an inexperienced amateur with not only no political experience, no real
job experience at all. I think we are too easy on those that sold us this bill of goods.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Response

Edited for typing

I agree that we are too easy on those who sold us a bill of goods. It would be a fair question to ask of Sullivan exactly when he realized that Bush was either a boob or a tyrant or both.

However, I think it is important to be fair. We must not become what we hate. We must not be liars trying to stretch the truth in order to fool rather than persuade our audience. We must attack the argument that the opposition makes, not the opponent himself; we must not bring up irrelevant matters in our opponent's peronal life, let alone just make them up.

The most offensive thing about the Bush regime is not that they were wrong about Iraq; it is that they lied about it. It isn't that some people thought that Bush made a better president than Kerry would have; it is that they lied about Kerry's record of valor in the Navy. And don't tell me these people didn't know they were lying.

After World War II, we the victors did not just take the Nazis out and hang them. That is what the Nazis would have done had they won the war. We hung several of them, but only after putting them in a courtroom in Nuremberg, presenting the evidence of their atrocities, allowing them to face their accusers and to present a case of their own in defense. By gosh, there were even a couple of them who were acquitted. They got justice.

That kind of justice and due process should not be regarded as a courtesy given by the victors to the vanquished. it is a basic, inalienable human right. It is a human right that the Nazis denied to so many and that the neoconservatives deny to so many.

Bush even wants Congress to codify his war crimes. As Martin Luther King reminded us, assisting a Jew in the Third Reich was illegal, while everything the Nazis did to the Jews was legal. Congress can pass any law it likes to the contrary. Just as what was done to the Jews by the Nazis was mass murder, regardless of what laws Hitler's Reichstag enacted, so waterboarding is torture; calling torture a "harsh interrogation technique" won't mean it isn't torture.

Let's not be like the neoconservatives or the Nazis.

[MissWaverly]

33. Well, I do agree on that

But I am bringing up what Andrew Sullivan said to me so that people can objectively judge
where he is coming from. He is not channeling the voice of all wisdom; he is a professional
pundit. We tend to hold up the media as people wiser than ourselves who must know what the
real truth is. I certainly want people to be judged on their record.

[Hamlette]

39. thanks Jack Rabbit, you said it better than I ever could

odd how so few people "hear" that argument.

My dad was a republican until Reagan. When Reagan pissed him off he went into a depression that lasted 2 years. He felt everything he thought was true and right had been a lie (much of it had been). When he came out of it, he became a flame throwing liberal.

People can change. Not many, but some do. I think we should be wary of people who say they have seen the light and judge them by their actions. It surprises me that so many people have forgiven Huffington (who was a VERY nasty right winger...think Coulter with bigger words) and Brock (who wrote a book trashing Anita Hill for gawds sake) but treat Sullivan like Rush treats us.

Why is that? Why have you forgiven Huffington and Brock but not Sullivan? I don't get it.

I'm not saying we should not judge Sullivan by his actions but he openly supported Kerry in 2004 and each and every day on his blog he attacks the same things we do here, religious crazies, Bush, Cheney and not many days go by that he doesn't repeat his argument for firing Rumsfeld. He thinks Michelle Matlin is absolutely insane, makes fun of the guy who wrote "Party of Death" and is now criticizing Nancy Grace on a pretty regular basis.

Yeah. He was a jerk once and, heavens knows, he's "British" (whatever that means for his views) so we should burn him at the stake with the rest of 'em.

If we want our country back, we should listen to the reasonable people on the other side. God knows we've got nuts on our side. We should judge all of them by the worst Republicans as we don't want to be judged by the looney left.

[nsd]

24. Sullivan endorsed John Kerry in 2004, not George Bush. /nt

[MissWaverly]

34. I know what he said afterwords

he said the better candidate had won, maybe, that was just an attempt to be on the winning
team. I dunno.

[MissWaverly]

49. Here's him expressing his support for Kerry

If the real root causes are in the fundamentalist psyche, then police-work and internal religious reformation are indeed our most effective weapons. I regret my decision to ditch Bush in '04, despite my extreme distaste for John Kerry, with less and less regret. Well, poor
Mr. Sullivan still regrets not voting for Bush in 2004, well maybe one of you can tell him
that he can have one of the 5 votes that my machine gave Bush in 2004. Tell him, not
to feel bad, he can have 5 free Bush votes from 04 from Baltimore, Maryland. We are accused
of becoming the other side. I am not the other side, never will be. I believe that after
the 2006 and 2008 election, the Republicans should have meaningful representation in Congress. I believe that if we elect a Democratic president, then we should still have oversight of the executive branch. I believe that we should not torture and should follow the Geneva conventions. I believe that anyone guilty of election fraud and corruption in government should be prosecuted. I believe that nobody should be discriminated against because they are latino, african american, islamic, or gay. I guess that makes me just like "them"

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/kerry_was_right.html

[Hamlette]

51. I don't agree with your interpretation of that post.

I hope people read the link you posted and not just the last line.

But feel free, pick him apart, find a line he wrote and twist it to your own needs.

This will destroy me in your eyes (I'm sure I'm already impure enough for you because I read Sullivan) there are some things about conservatism I agree with. I think we should keep taxes as low as possible and make the government manage its money better and I believe we need a strong defense (as a deterrent to war.)

I also believe there are many wonderful people who are republicans and I will listen to them when they make sense and ignore them when they don't. Just as I do with the ideologues on the left who I work with.

Act, don't react. Words to live by.

[MissWaverly]

54. I have been hearing a lot about how great the Republicans are

there are thousands of Americans who have died since 2000, we have lost a major American city,
thousands of innocent Iraqis, thousands of our soldiers killed and wounded. Has there been
any accountability for this? There were women and children put in prison in Iraq and in
GITMO, do we know why? We have had a Republican majority rule since 2002, where is the accountability. Now, during Clinton's administration, we had endless carping about anything
Clinton did. We spent 140 hours investigating his Christmas Card mailing and there has only
been a great silence since 2000. Go ahead, scream in my ear, call me a bigot, say that I am
not nice to Repubicans. I don't care, this happened on their watch, they are responsible.
There was nothing Clinton did that they were not up in his face about including his personal
life. The enablers must go, the neocons must go, the pork barrel crowd must go. And no
I am not twisting his words. Andrew Sullivan said he regretted not voting for Bush and
despised Kerry. His words not mine. If you doubt he said that, why don't you write him.

[Hamlette]

55. if you want accountability for this war, you must prosecute

the dems who voted for it to, including Kerry. Hell, he had the opportunity to stop this war before it started and did not. And he had the opportunity to win in 2004 and did not.

I hope you will hold him to account too. And Brock and Huffington and all the dems who voted for the war.

[MissWaverly]

56. I do not hold a vote for AUMF as a crime

I am talking about fixing the policy around the facts, you know that Bush admits that Iraq
had nothing to do with 9-11, that was a large part of his rationale for the AUMF to invade
Iraq. I am talking about manipulating intelligence to produce a war.

[Hamlette]

70. what did Sullivan have to do with that? n/t

[MissWaverly]

73. see post 71

where I posted a Sullivan post praising Bush intention to invade Iraq. It's sounds like another
neocon praise piece to me.

[Hamlette]

38. the better candidate did win in 2004

bush ran a better race.

That is different from saying the best person won in 2004.

[MissWaverly]

44. Well, the jury is still out on that one

If winning means that you rig an election so that you are the winner; then Bush won hands down.
I personally saw my machine default to Bush 5 times when I pushed the square for "Kerry"
in 2004. Now I am voting in 2006 in the Maryland primary, and yes, I show ID but they
say I have already voted before I even leave the pollworkers table. But not to "Worry"
they will put a piece of "PAPER" with my vote to "EXPLAIN" that I only voted once. And
yet every year, as sure as the rain falls, they never make a mistake with my tax return
or calculating what I owe down to the nearest decimal point.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

69. Well, I'm the same man that used to pee my bed.

As a small, small child, of course. But, still.

People make mistakes; I'm sure you've been fooled and confused before. We all have a right to make mistakes; hopefully we come to correct them, which Sullivan has done with his great writing against the Bush administration's lunacy.

[bvar22]

18. Purely CYA and Deflecting personal responsibility!

I don't trust ANY of these JailHouse Conversions.

Pointing their fingers at bush* is a GREAT way to do two things:

1)Absolve themselves of GUILT for their rabid support of Bush*/Republicans policies while they were committing these crimes IN PLAIN SIGHT

AND

2) Save the failed doctrine of "Compassionate Conservatism" by putting All the blame on a few bad apples.

The current NATIONAL DISASTER is the logical conclusion for the failed DOCTRINE of Compassionate Conservatism. This is not just a matter of throwing bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/ in jail.
We MUST use this opportunity to drive a STAKE through the cold, dark heart of Conservatism, and rid America from this curse FOREVER.

DISCREDIT and RIDICULE the FAILED Doctrine, not just its figureheads.
Kill this MONSTER for ALL TIME!

[GuvWurld]

20. Compassionate conservatism is neither a doctrine nor a failure

Compassionate conservatism was a propagandistic frame adopted to sell radical policies. It worked. Many swallowed it. The rest, like us, choked on it and immediately coughed it back up. The noise we were making was pretty effectively drowned out, but not so much anymore. Now we're hearing retching sounds from all quarters. This resistance, to whatever extent it is or will be successful, is not evidence of a failed doctrine. The compassionate conservative frame is hardly even invoked anymore. Compassionate conservatism is not what we are overcoming because it never really existed except as a made up label to confuse and distract the masses from what was really happening. So, I submit that compassionate conservatism is neither a doctrine nor a failure and we should not do anything to reinforce the notion that fascists ever genuinely ran such a program.

[MissWaverly]

45. discredit the enablers

Looke we were all sweet and kind over Watergate, pardon Nixon, get it over with, we did the
same thing over Iran-Contra, we had the whole dirty mess in secret hearings where the congress
enabled the criminals by covering up their crimes, now we have torture, thousands dead
and millions of dollars missing from government contracts, plus an illegal war. Now, I
am saying, enough, we are not going to slap a smiley face on this folks. Someone is
going to have to held accountable for this folks. I have not forgotten that those congressman
heard about what was going on in Abu Ghraib and gently tiptoed out of room and kept the lid
on it.

[Hamlette]

46. yes, by all means, let's discredit Lindsay Graham!!!

Let's show that he is WRONG to fight torture because he voted for this war and to impeach Clinton.

Let's tear him to shreds, throw him to the wolves NOW, NOW that he is trying to prevent torture, NOW is the time to hold him accountable.

After all, he's evil and we're good.

[MissWaverly]

48. Let's have a reality check, shall we

here's a post you should find interesting, it's from last year, it's a summary of a dem bashing
session on the dems that Sullivan participated in. It doesn't matter if you take one quote
and promote him as a "nice guy." If he is actively pursuing the 1 party majority rule of the
republican party and the knee jerk definition of the democratic party as wussies and scum that
should not have power. This is how we no longer have 2 party rule in this country. And, YES,
I am against it.

Posted to the web on Monday June 13, 2005 at 6:06 PM EST
Panelists on Chris Matthews Show served up anti-Democrat rhetoric
Summary:
All four panelists on the June 12 edition of the syndicated Chris Matthews Show -- Time magazine senior writer and columnist Joe Klein, conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and Vogue magazine senior writer Julia Reed -- offered up copious anti-Democrat smears and repeated unfounded claims critical of Democrats. The panelists offered no comparable criticism of Republicans.

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200506130004

[Hamlette]

50. Sullivan is not a democrat, might not ever be one

and Dean can be an unpleasant guy. So can I. So can most of the people I know of substance.

I find it telling that you use as your source, a web site started and run by the guy who was not a moderate conservative but a part of the right wing attack machine and who wrote a book that trashed Anita Hill, tore to shreds a woman whose only "crime" was to stand up and tell the truth.

I am not convinced that we should refuse to listen to reasonable voices on the other side. I do not believe we can win elections, let alone govern, if we don't at least listen to those on the other side.

I want to start winning elections. If we end up not being pure to do it, fine. I'm old enough to have given up on our ideal of what we think FDR was, or even Kennedy for that matter. The people I know who are pure...are pure ideologues. And I don't have to remind you that ideolouges are the reason we are in Iraq now. I work with ideologues on both sides and honestly, those on the left hurt us more than they help us. (The stories I could tell. . .)

We hold Sullivan to a different standard. I don't know many democrats who have the guts to call for prosecuting Bush for war crimes or who have been as unrelentingly vocal in opposition to the religious right, Rumsfeld, Bush or Cheney.

[MissWaverly]

53. I want fairness & objective reporting

I want both parties to be be objectively reviewed

I want what you want objective reporting with no bias towards either side
I want an objective reporting of the facts
I want anyone who received money to write favorable articles to Bush excluded from journalism,
if this seems harsh I remember that Pete Rose was excluded from Baseball for betting on the game, I look upon this as a similar thing
I want DU to function as a "democratic" forum to present ideas to further progressive and
democratice values
I want accountability for every single individual responsible for the lies that lead up to the
Iraq War
I want accountability for every single individual responsible for election fraud
I want accountability for every single individual involved in accepting bribes, government
kickbacks, etc.

I do not want Bush to be 'blameed' and all the neocons and others who were enablers to go free

[bvar22]

25. Suit yourself,

but I'm burning their fucking coffins.

[fooj]

27. All Americans should be calling him a WAR CRIMINAL at this point.

[Supersedeas]

104. the Corp Television Pundits do wanna talk about moral high ground just

compromise between a minority of Repubbies and THEIR President

[Bucky]

31. I hate to complain about rats running from a sinking ship, but...

...this is just another rat running--no different from Powell who didn't say a word for three years while Bush ran around saying he was going to set up military commissions. Now that he's harmless and retired, Powell suddenly grows a pretend back bone and says, "Doing this thing that I didn't do squat to stop for three years would be bad."

As for Sully--pfff. Big bullies like having a world class military to push the rest of the world around. Once it's clear that Bush is in trouble, they all go rushing over to kiss McCain's ass because they can't vicariously feel like tough guys anymore. I doubt they even think about the thousands of American kids they sent into that meat grinder over their obviously lies.

I knew this day would come: Bush topples from his pedastal and the establishment chugs along playing like they were right all along. Nixon's enablers pulled the same stunt.

[Imagevision]

32. War Crimes? - This is why Bush needs to amend geneva convention laws

If they don't, and they lose the house and/or senate, many will be brought up on war crimes charges including chimpy.

[splat]

35. Sullivan hasn't been a conservative for some time n/t

[hatrack]

36. Good thing he was warning us about Bush back in 2000 . . .

Oh. Never mind.

[Justice Is Comin]

37. When the Gitmo's start spilling the beans, bush will be

blotting the sweat on his head like Louis Armstrong.

[Malikshah]

40. It still won't save Andrew's soul....oh wait, I forgot

He doesn't have one.

Such an embarassment to the rest of us family.

Just call me mdme defarge...



Death to King Louiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssss....

Now let's end on a high note...

[Hamlette]

41. you won't save his soul? Funny, I expected your answer to be

because you're not god.

The left is just as bad as the right. Sanctamonious, full of hate. No wonder the democratic party doesn't look any better to people than the republican party.

[Malikshah]

42. Nah-- not as sanctimonious, but rather-for me--unforgiving

he was and is an opportunistic blowhard who with tremendous condescension blathered forth his views and chided any who disagreed with him. He, like Hitchens, latched himself onto the gravy train of grief and now is second-guessing his choices.

In addition, his other moves, non-political, leave a lot to be desired (and this coming from myself, another gay man)

"The left is bad as the right"-- please. Be careful with that line. It's an antique! ;)

[Hamlette]

43. so am I

antique that is and I have spent my life thinking we were different from them.

I don't like decisions Sullivan has made in his private life either. But I didn't like the decision Clinton made in his private life and god knows I've made some I regret. But, crap man, we're trying to fix a country gone horribly wrong by a group of mad men. Not only should we stop being so petty, we are going to need all the help we can get. Do you realize the majority of americans now believe in torture? How did we get here? Without Graham, McCain et al, Karl Rove would be telling America how weak and stupid and wrong the girlie men Dems are. This IS the fight of our lives but not against the terrorists, against those who want to destroy everything I love about my country. Unlike you, I'll listen to anyone who'll help me get my country back.

But for you, what we do now is say, anyone who was never on our side be damned, we don't want you now. We'll take over and run this place as we see fit without you because you were so wrong before.

Sounds just like where these creeps went wrong: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html

Since your definition of Sullivan "oportunistic blowhard who with a tremendous condescension blathered forth his views and chided any who disagreed with him" clearly fits Huffington and Brock, why is it that links to Media Matters and Huffington Post are not met with the venom links to Sullivan are?

[Malikshah]

52. If this is a call for me to call out all those who need to make amends

I'm choosing my battles to those who I view as being particularly heinous.

Brock, at least, has made a full public confession of his ills and at least is making amends.

Arianna-- never had time for her either way and in both cases she has been relatively harmless.

Sullivan let himself be suckered in and is now trying to play the game without accepting his responsibility.

As for Clinton-- we disagree-- what Clinton did is one thing. What Sullivan did and does in his private decisions are quite different.

I'm sorry to see that some don't see that there is a difference--still--b/w what I've been saying and what the right does.

But, that's life.

[MissWaverly]

57. I agree with you

I want our country to return to a rule of law. I want 2 party rule and rule by those
who believe in public service not cronyism. Here we have proof that Iraq was packed
with cronies another proof of this administrtion disasterous legacy. It's time to take
a hard look at anyone who has been propping up his failed policies for so long.

[TahitiNut]

47. "...they must be prosecuted for war crimes."

Amen. :applause:

[TroglodyteScholar]

58. self-delete

[SeveneightyWhoa]

60. Wow. The response to this (here on DU) is unbelievable.

Rather than express satisfaction and surprise at such a blunt, radical statement entering the mainstream -- from a generally respected Republican pundit (and one whose blog I read every day) -- DU'ers are taking it upon themselves to attack him personally.

You'd think we were in freeperville with all of the blatant ignorance displayed here. The only distinguishing factor is the lack of anti-gay sentiment against Andrew..

[MissWaverly]

61. call me a bigot but I am mad at biased journalists

I want fair, objective reporting, if you read Andrew Sullivan and like him, bully for you,
this is America, you have a right to express your opinions. I just think that American journalists have helped enabled what has passed as governement policy the last 6 years. The
founding fathers saw a free press as a check on government. What we have had is bush enablers,
non-objective reporting, suppression of the Democratic position or deliberate skewing of
publicity to favor Republicans over the facts. Are you surprised that we are still angry
less than 1 week after the "Path to 9-11." Are you surprised that I am still angry over
Mr. Sullivan telling me to get over 2004. Well, 2004 was rigged, more and more comes to light
every day. I am not asking reporters or pundits to share my views, just do their jobs.
And yes, I base what I am saying on personal experience or what I have read. I do not
resort in name calling. We are angry in this country about what
has happened to America and we want an accounting.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

63. Wow! Andrew Sullivan is not even a "journalist".

He's a columnist or opinion writer, meaning his job is to be subjective, not objective.

I'm glad you feel the way you do, as expressed in your tangential rant, but at least get your definition of the man's job/role correct before you spout off about how "biased" his opinions are.

[MissWaverly]

64. snip from his bio on Wikipedia

Andrew Sullivan (born 1. August 10, 1963) is an British-American journalist, author, blogger and former editor of The New Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

[SeveneightyWhoa]

65. The difference is clear.

A "journalist" reports objectively.

Andrew Sullivan blogs, writes, comments, and opines subjectively. Always. I've never seen him called, or call himself, a "journalist". Ever.

[MissWaverly]

66. please see my post which I corrected

I took it from Wikipedia. I can see that you have a lot of energy and wish that you would
channel it to fixing what is wrong with this country. If my tangential rants are not good
for you; create others that will help end the torture of those in GITMO and in Iraq, that
will lead to real Congressional oversight of the Bush administration. If you are a Republican,
please lead the assault to help the Republicans from caving in on scrapping the Geneva conventions. You seem like a moral person, lead the fight to make American good again.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

68. Great.

This is clearly an unwinnable semantic argument; surely he is a "journalist" in the broad sense of the term, but not so in the sense that he is an objective observer/reporter -- at least at this point in his career. I'm sure you'll agree with me on that. My point is that he's free to be "biased", as objectivity is not part of his job description as a blogger/commentator/pundit.

[MissWaverly]

71. See this post of Andrew Sullivan

I am sorry you and I disagree, I cannot and do not agree with this statement which I believe
is a statement of support for PNAC and the neocon philosophy. The truth is that I did not
support the run to war, I wanted the UN to handle it. I am not a neocon and I do not support
neocon ideals which this post by Sullivan does. And I don't like how someone comes here
and posts 1 fact about someone and expects everyone to support that person. He might have
voted for Kerry in 2004, but he said he regretted it.

The truth is: Bush’s diplomatic headaches have much less to do with his poor diplomatic skills than with the fact that he is trying ambitious things. Rather than simply forestall crises, Bush is doing the hard thing. He’s calling for democracy in the Middle East. He’s aiming to make the long-standing American policy of regime change in Iraq a reality. He wants to defeat Islamist terrorism rather than make excuses for tolerating its cancerous growth. When this amount of power is fuelled by this amount of conviction, of course the world is aroused and upset.
What the world is afraid of, after all, is not the deposing of Saddam. What the world is afraid of is American hyperpower wielded by a man of faith and conviction. Bush’s manner grates. His style — like Reagan’s — offends. But, like Reagan, he is not an anomaly in American foreign policy; he is merely a vivid representative of a deep and idealistic strain within it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860108/posts

[Hamlette]

77. He did NOT say he regretted it, you are spinning and taking

his statements out of context.

If that is how you think it is best to discuss things, fine, but I don't and I'm going to call you every time you spin.

If a Dem candidate goes over the edge and I find the GOP candidate better, I will vote for the GOP candidate AND I will regret my vote. If I later learn the GOP candidate was BETTER than I thought, I will say "I regret my vote less and less over time." Which is EXACTLY what Sullivan said in that post about Kerry as he was singing Kerry's praises!

As for the rest of you post, I have no idea what you object to. I happen to believe that America does believe in democracy. Which is all Sullivan is saying.

NeoCons were once Democrats (by your score keeping, should we be supporting them because they were on our side? Or is it not that you take someone's belief at one point in time but rather you insist everyone always be right on every subject? So were the Necons wrong when they supported the Dems? See, it gets confusing.)

Anyway, the Neocons believe we should export democracy at the point of a gun if necessary. It's hard to argue with their goal, which is to be admired, its their means that I object to.

I think I have taken this too personally. I fight leftist ideologues in my job and they have been getting to me because they are hurting the very people they think they are helping. Also, I had nothing but admiration for my father because he was able to change his point of view as his beloved party, the GOP, went nutz.

I'll keep reading Sullivan everyday and when he says something worthy of note, I'll post it here. And I'll keep helping to build a majority party including anyone who is CURRENTLY on our side, even if I don't agree with everything they say or have done.

And I'll keep fighting ideologues on both sides. They are just too dangerous to let them get control of anything, the party, the country, the military.

[MissWaverly]

79. I must admit I don't follow your logic

he says he despises Kerry, and you say he is really praising him, I read posts of his which
he was an avid supporter of Bush's push to go to Iraq. I watch the news every day, I heard
Bush say we went to Iraq on bad intelligence. My neighbor across the street was called to
serve in Iraq at age 55 because he is in the National Guard and his mother is 80 and a widow
with no other family. I care very deeply about what has happened to this country and I want
us to get this country back on track. I do not support neocons, have never supported them
and yes, I am leery of those who cheered Bush during the Iraq invasion. You are concerned
about idle theorists, well, I am concerned about my 80 year old neighbor who doesn't drive
and has been left alone while her son is over in Iraq. If he does not make it back, will
Bush care for one megasecond, no.

[Hamlette]

84. where does he say he despises Kerry?

The writings of the neocons (obviously not Bush) say their goal is to export democracy. Bush says that was one of his goals and now, since his other two reasons for going have been disproved, that's all he has left.

There are some persuasive arguments for trying to establish a liberal democracy in the Middle East (besides Israel.) I would love for that to happen. Wouldn't you? (I'm not asking can we.)

Sullivan said Kerry was flawed, I've never read where he said he despised him.

[MissWaverly]

86. Democracy is home grown, it can't be exported somewhere

Is Israel a liberal democracy? Has it been a stable force influencing peace in the Middle East? I really don't know. I know that there are almost 300 Palestinian children
who are child laborers in Israeli prisons. We said that we supported Lebanon, it is a democracy and then we supported the Israeli offensive against a democratic nation. Bush now says that you can't enter a sovereign country unless you are invited. Sullivan said he had extreme distaste for Kerry, I would say that qualifies as hate in my book. I posted the source on another post on this thread.

[Hamlette]

88. were did/does Sullivan say he has an "extreme distaste" for Kerry?

and, as I expected, you did not answer my question.

My question was simply, wouldn't you like to see liberal democracies in the middle east? Since you didn't answer, I have to assume either that you don't or that you don't want to "discuss" the issue.

I would love the whole world to be nothing but liberal democracies. I don't think we can do it at the point of a gun but I do think there are things we can do to encourage that. Moral things. And I'll work with anyone willing to try.

[MissWaverly]

90. he says he has "extreme dislike" for Kerry

it is in his post of August 15th, 2006 1:15 pm on the Daily Dish, I posted a snip
of it elsewhere on this thread.

[MissWaverly]

91. this is the 3rd time I have answered your question

you must be having trouble with your update refresh of your posts,
the answer is on his web page: the daily dish
August 15th, 2006 1:15 pm
he mentions his extreme distaste of John Kerry
Just google, extreme distaste, John Kerry, Andrew Sullivan it should pop up
Bush himeself said that nation building does not work, democracy must be a grassroots effort
and we cannot change the governments of the M.E. into democracies, they must make the
decision for democracy themselves and after 6 years of our bullying, I doubt there is
much desire to follow western styles of governing right now.

[Hamlette]

94. ah, the post entitled "Kerry was Right"

I hate to say this, but I had an extreme distaste for Kerry too.

Still do.

He was a hero of mine from my anti-Vietnam years but he ran a horrid campaign and voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

And he was the wrong choice to run in 2004 (my god, saluting at the convention "reporting for duty"? Still pisses me off.)

[MissWaverly]

96. well, I prefer Kerry who has experience including in combat

to Bush who in his own words admits that he is a "media creation" I am leaning towards
Wesley Clark in 2008. He did not support the invasion into Iraq. He is someone that
can go into a room and drive his point across and he could control the neocons.

[Hamlette]

99. yes, as between the two choices, duh

but Kerry was my dead last pick for demo candidate (I was an avid Clarkie from day one. At least we agree on something!)

I never could get exicted about Kerry and think if he had had a little more fight in him, he would have won. He was just so lack luster.

Too bad Clark got so chewed up early on. I still send him money each month (his PAC). I think he'd have a much better chance against McCain than Hillary.

[MissWaverly]

101. looking back I think Kerry was a bad choice

there was too much baggage over his antiwar protests, he had an excellent record, but
it's the protestor thing.

[MissWaverly]

103. I prefer Wesley Clark over Senator Clinton

for one thing, I DO NOT want to go through Monica Lewinsky and the Paula Jones scandal again.
I don't want to hear about Sen. Clinton and her amazing luck with investing in futures
or any of the other dirt the GOP carries around and starts flinging the minute the Clinton
name is mentioned. I like Bill Clinton and I think he would be excellent as our
representative at the UN.

[BlooInBloo]

98. Maybe you're blind. I have seen it. Lots and lots of times.

Here's 3+ million likely spots to find such:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22andrew+sullivan%22+journalist&btnG=Google+Search

Have fun.

[MissWaverly]

102. Yes, you are quite correct

it's there when you look for it.

:-)

[KoKo]

85. "Turncoats" who suddenly "recant" their misdeads are always Suspect!

You have to wonder about those "early rats" who leave the Sinking Ship.

Is it for HONOR or CAREER to RAT AGAIN? That's what some folks are thinking about Sullivan...and the few others who are "Rats" who bailed. :shrug:

It's an honest worry...wouldn't ya think?

[Hamlette]

87. absolutely, I completely don't trust them

but I'm thankful for the support and think we are better off to refrain from kicking them in the teeth and listening to see if they become one of us.

As did Huffington, Brock, Dean (I think, mostly). I don't fully trust any of them but I welcome them to the light...and the party. I just wouldn't actively recommend any of them for office.

Dean and Sullivan are still conservatives. I don't think Brock or Huffington are but I'd still not want any of them carrying our banner or holding high office as I'll probably never trust any of them.

I like that Sullivan trashes not only bush/cheney/rumsfeld each and every day, he trashed the religious right each day and he has better arguments than I do because he knows the bible.

He also trashes Malkin and other ridiculous right wingers. He posts their most outrageous comments on his blog and points out why they are so stupid. That way, I can just read Sullivan and know what the right wing nut cases are posting and how to counter them (additional arguments.)

He thinks Counter is despicable and has been highly critical of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. He never misses an opportunity to point out how awful John Yoo, Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh (sp?) are and many other conservatives.

He is so angry about the torture issue he can't see straight. (I'll overlook the obvious joke.)

I honestly thought he was going to give Bush a pass after he was so upset about the gay marriage deal but he hasn't. He'll probably never be a liberal but if strong military and balanced budget are his only two "conservative" values, I can live with that. Maybe he can help us take our country back. that's all I want.

[KoKo]

89. Your "reasoned point of view" is interesting and Well Worth the Read!

Thanks for your "counter" to my more "Dire" view of Sullivan and his Ilk.

:-)'s

[Imagevision]

67. Now I know why Bush needs to change Geneva Convention rules!!

To cover his own ass from being busted when the Dems tale over power in elections!

[ihelpu2see]

72. exactly, impeachment is to easy on them, War Crimes trial needed!

[MissWaverly]

74. I believe that's what we need

we need to figure out who deliberately falsified information and when.

[Disturbed]

75. Not clear enough for you?

What is a war crime?
By Tarik Kafala
BBC News Online


Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm



Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment

Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person

Willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial

[MissWaverly]

76. I don't think you understood my post

I am all in favor of war crimes trials. What I was referring to throughout this thread is this.
We have to take a hard look at anyone who supported the neocon, PNAC plan for the Middle East
and now adopts a more moderate stance. What are their motives, that's what makes me leery of these people. Do they honestly want a return to the rule of law, oversight of the executive
branch, freedom of the press and all that many democrats and many americans hold dear. OR are
they just disenchanted with Bush because he failed to achieve their objectives and really
hunger for another strong man with 1 party rule to defy the UN and establish dominion over
the globe. I want a return to the America that is a democracy not a beachhead for the new
world order.

[Disturbed]

78. Miss Waverly, I agree with you 100%.

My post was not specifically in response to yours. I was clarifying the War Crimes of the Busholini Regime.

[MissWaverly]

80. thank you, I am afraid, very afraid of what lies ahead

We have to be very careful folks, remember these people are spin masters, they know just
how to frame something. I would not judge by one post but by 6 months worth of posts.

[spanone]

81. Andrew got what he wished for...2 bush* terms.

I'm glad he's joined the fight, I hope he fights against bush* as hard as he fought for him.

[MissWaverly]

82. I hope he wants a real change: return to the rule of law

and how about the old Republican core value: fiscal responsibility that's more or less
gone out the window of the Bush administration.

[Vidar]

83. Has a lovely ring to it.

[DemonFighterLives]

92. I'm not that fond of Sullivan and I sure wouldn't read him all the time

He will rot your mind or at least did in the past.
On this issue he seems to be on the right side of the righties though.

I tend to agree with Miss Waverly for the most part. But if Andy has seen the light then so be it.
:dem:

[Hamlette]

95. you should give it a try

I never miss a day. I don't always agree with him, but if you have any interest in knowing what the other side is up to, he'll tell you...and criticize it.

www.andrewsullivan.com

I think you'll be surprised.

As an example, his latest post is "Letter of the Day" which is Vessey's letter to McCain against torture.

His post before that trashes the Wall Street Journal editorial page (He gives them the Malkin award which is his award for hysterical (not as in funny), freaky, nut cases.)

The post before that trashes Yoo for his position on torture.

The post before that criticizes Jonah Goldberg's post on Powell (Sullivan supports Powell's position on torture and calls Goldberg on his comment that Powell is a Johnny come lately to the issue by posting earlier stuff from Powell against torture from early 2002)

Before that, he posted that Glenn Reynolds finally admits things are deterioriating in Iraq. (He and Glenn have been at odds over that issue, with Glenn painting what Andrew believes is too rosy a picture of the condition of Iraq now.)

That's all for today. Every single post critical of the right or in support of a ban on torture. Yesterday he was pissed at Nancy Grace and her treatment of the mother and republicans and the religious right. As usual.

I think you'd be surprised. I don't always agree with him but like John Dean, he's one conservative I can "hear".

Oh, there's an update. He links to the Washington Post article that Iraq was run by republican hacks, not experts and says: "In the immortal words of Abe Simpson, it's a story that angers up the blood."

Edited to correct a typo and add the update.

[DemonFighterLives]

100. That doesn't sound too bad

It seems just a few years back he was full of shit. At what point did he have enough and seek enlightenment?
:hi:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

93. Sullivan wrote an article in Esquire before the last election against Bush

n/t

[Just Me]

97. They ARE war criminals. They ARE worse, attempting to ,...

,...PRECLUDE THEIR CRIMES VIA THEIR OWN "DEMOCRACY".

"They" treat their own citizens and country like,..."objects" to USE for their benefit. OBJECTS/SUBJECTS to be manipulated and spent to further their own interests.

If that isn't evil,...tell me, what is 'evil'. If that isn't ANTI-democracy and freedom and entreprenuerialism,...what is? Tell me. If there tactics aren't TYRANNICAL, tell what compares to their deception, diversion of national treasure, spending of lives, casting death so incomprehensible IT WILL NOT BE SHOWN ON AMERICAN TEEVEE!!!!