Glenn: DO NOT TRUST CONTENT FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN

An interesting note from Glenn today. He’s apparently come to the very same conclusion I came to years ago:

DO NOT TRUST CONTENT FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN: I can’t go around answering all of Andrew Sullivan’s misrepresentations, but it’s telling that he can’t seem to criticize me without misrepresenting what I’ve said. In this post he links to a truncated version of my views on the torture debate on another blog.  Why?

Probably because if he linked to my actual post it would reveal some uncomfortable things. First, that I’m not pro-torture despite Andrew’s pathetic eagerness to find me so, and second, that I was criticizing the Democrats’ inconsistency on the subject. Oh, and third, it appears that waterboarding, over which Andrew has exercised himself so much in recent years, and upon which he has staked his many, many, many, many claims to moral supremacy, actually stopped in 2003 — ironically, just as Andrew executed his pivot against Bush and the war — and was only used three times. This seems pretty consistent with my view of torture, which is that I’m against it, but that it’s not quite the issue Andrew wants it — perhaps I should say needs it — to be. Rather, especially for the Democrats, the torture debate has been a political tool, applied in an “any weapon to hand” fashion when politics dictate, but abandoned when they feel the need to talk tough on terrorism.

None of this is out of line with what Andrew the Incontinent has been doing for years.  That’s exactly why I gave up on him, back in 04.

Frankly, if there’s anything that amazes me about this, it’s that it too this long for Reynolds to come to this conclusion.  Usually, Reynolds is a fairly smart cookie, (though I must say I stoutly disagree with what I perceive his position on torture to be.)

His delay in coming to this conclusion about Sullivan is a bit of a mystery to me. (Shrug) I’d guess he’s had other things occupying his time.

As for Sullivan, himself, his dishonesty started years ago, when he finally discovered his championing of homosexuality couldn’t be meshed well with what his logic had led him to in other portions of his life.  After he recognized he was suddenly more popular in raw numbers, with his newfound leftist friends, he’s been similarly dishonest in his arguments not involving homosexuality. After all, if it worked there so well for him…. it should work everywhere.

And so it has, for a while. But the downward spiral has been happening for a long time. As I said back in ’05:

Drezner last night decides to take on the task of reading and arguing Andrew Sullivan’s TNR peice. Glenn’s been commenting on this one too.

The two of them do a far enough job of trying to argue with him as if they take him seriously. I suppose they DO take him seriously, and I think it a mistake. But, even there, I think they get the better of the argument.

Let’s go for the root of the problem, though.

 

When I see someone claiming conservatism, who quite publicly supported the most left wing candidate possible; John Kerry

When I see a homosexual calling loudly for homosexual marriage at the expense of all else, and yet still claiming Roman Catholosim;

When I see an ostensive Brit liberal, trying to re-define for his own purposes what it means to be an American Conservative;

When I see such a man in his opening Para claiming that it’s American conservatives that are confused;

Well, I gotta tell ya…it’ll all I can do to hold my chair for all the laughing. It’s like Elmer Fudd claiming Jack Warner had a widdle speech prwobwem.

Sullivan’s attempts in this article at self-justification… and that’s really what that article is… are about as impressive as Teddy Kennedy complaints about simulated drownings at Abu Griabe.

What amazes me is anyone takes Sullivan seriously, anymore, when he breaks out his label gun.

Sullivan, by means of a left so desperate as to use any tool to hand, including Sullivan, for it’s own ends, has been able to keep himself afloat readership-wise. There’s always a number of idiots up for a good fantasy, after all.. and the lieft has been needing alrger share of reinforcement of late.. In this, Sullivan has a unique position; He is that person the left most loves, and will ignore most other aspects of… An EX Republican.

But the years of dishonest arguments are starting to catch up with him, as I predicted they would, years ago. His credibility is shrinking by the hour. The timing, in terms of the 08 election, seems fortunate.
Now, of course, the left needs their spokesman, and so… we’re about to see the standard defense of Sulivan from the left, and from Sullivan, himself. We’re about to hear, for example, about what a right-winger Glenn Reynolds is, which of course is laughable on it’s face.  But again, since when has honesty ever invaded the arguments of these numb-nuts?

All that said, it’s all coming unglued, today. What we’re seeing, here is the culmination of a process I predicted back in ’03.

Addendum: And by the way… I should share a chuckle with you… Oliver WIllis, arguably the least honest person in the sphere, one of the few on the planet who could rival Sullivan for the title… and as far as I’m concerned, the MASTER of misrepresentation, giving us this line:

Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan, two of the least intellectually honest people in the blogosphere, are arguing with each other about misrepresentation.

I’m dyin’, here…..