[ARCADIA]

Well, he sounds conflicted in his endorsement of Kerry. I guess Sullivan can't get past the how differently the war has turned out as expected.

RECAP - I think that he makes some strong points -

The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.

Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake

I have a hard time getting past these two issues as well

[26lemoncharlie]

I believe that he is in Dire need of a procedure called a PLEXIOTOMY !

A PLEXIOTOMY is a surgical procedure whereby a rectangle of flesh, measureing 4" by 6" is removed just below the patients belly button and a piece of PLEXIGLASS is inserted.

The procedure is for people who have their head up their A$$ can see where the H they are going !! Strongly recommended hear!!

[Steve_Seattle]

"the appalling damage a constitutional amendment [on gay marriage] would do to the social fabric"

Well, Andrew, just what would that "appalling damage" be? It would preserve the status quo on marriage - how can preserving the status quo be considered "appalling damage," which implies some kind of drastic change?

[conserv13]

Thanks for this post. I like Andrew Sullivan, and he makes some good points. It is telling how a lot of the posters here have not made any arguments against Sullivan except that he is gay.

[AL Mamlouk]

Don't be fooled, Sullivan has no core beliefs. He is a one issue bagman. He has no understanding of what Iraq is all about. You don’t drop the match if you’re down one set. There will be many stories to come that will make Sullivan lick his tale. Waite until the trials of Saddam and his Baathi goons begin and then you’ll see what kind of WMD you found in Iraq. The left and their allies the Europeans will be shamed if ever they have any shame left. Patience.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Shorter, more accurate version:

WHY I AM SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY.

Two words: Gay. Marriage. --Andrew Sullivan [honest version]

[Torie]

The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation.

Sullivan has sure changed his tune, regarding the above (Sullivan was celebrating Bush's actions in Iraq long after the WMD's turned up missing), when he freaked out over the proposed anti gay marriage constitutional amendment, and now he's just spinning. Sullivan's comment above is simply polemical BS, and I can't believe Sullivan isn't smart enough to know it. Everybody, including the usual suspects, the Germans and the French thought Saddam had WMD, and tried to cajole Bush to just be patient, and Saddam would eventually give them up (and meantime the French could continue to feather their nest).

Indeed, Saddam himself may have thought he had WMD's and just didn't know he had been defrauded by his underlings, and the allocated money had gone into their Swiss bank accounts. That was my original theory, and I'm sticking to it. It is the only explanation that makes sense of Saddam's actions.

[madameguinot]

Coincidence that this article is in sync with this week's DNC theme: Bush's competency in the execution of Iraq war. ???

Sullivan ain't no conservative. He's an opportunist.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.

This might have been averted had we ignored the UN and commenced the war several months earlier, not giving Saddam time to move anything. Is that your preference? Both have down-sides.

Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake

Who didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency? It's no stronger than I anticipated it would be.

[avg_freeper]

Andrew Sullivan -

"Why I'm supporting John Kerry. Three words. John John Sandwich. They're so hot together I just want rush in and be the hamburger to their buns. FABU' LICOUS"

[KMAJ2]

Andrew Sullivan is a one agenda voter, gay rights trumps all other issues, and Bush's stance on same sex marriage and endorsing the constitutional amendment to ban it, made Sullivan turn on Bush, so this endorsement is no surprise to any informed Freeper. If you have followed Sullivan's columns, you would have noticed the about face in his writing following Bush's endorsement of the amendment.

He has merely latched on to democrat talking points in a lame attempt to justify his hackneyed endorsement.

So they didn't find WMDs ? All intelligence agencies said Saddam had them before the war. It is the intelligence communities failure, not Bush's. Would you haver preferred he did nothing and found out that Saddam did have them after a WMD was set off in one of our major cities ? Should he have trusted Saddam's word ? Especially knowing how bribed the UN, France and others were by Saddam.

Anticipating the strength of the insurgency ? Is he supposed to have a crystal ball and known that Iraq's military would fold so quickly and disappear into the populace ? In every war, the unexpected and unpredictable occur.

Those two issues are hindsight issues. Part of leading is making hard decisions, not sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

[COUNTrecount]

Sullivan says he "Supports", not votes, for Kerry. As I said, he is British. Unless he became a citizen he can not vote. And if I read the article correctly, he never actually says that he will be voting for Kerry.He's very nuanced in his choice of words.

[libbylu]

i read to where he said kerry wasn't evil. kerry is evil. it's all about kerry, and no one else....he and jane helped create the environment where our viet nam vets were spit on, and over 2 million south vietnamese slaughtered when we pulled out. they should both be tried for treason.

[Paperdoll]

Where is Everett Dirksen when we need him? Oh. Well then, where is someone like Everett Dirksen when we need him?

In reality, Arcadia. GWB comes legions closer than J (Jackass) F(Foney)Kerry (Kommie) in filling that bill.

[Dr.Deth]

Bush has had some notable achievements. He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession; he was right to push for strong federal standards for education; he was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban; he was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror.

Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval

So let me get this straight: For everything Bush has done right, you'll damn him because he didn't ask permission from the U.N. to swat a menace to the civilized world. Ho-kay. I can see you're very credible. </sarcasm>

And as for you ARCADIA, do you work for Reuters? 1) Insurgents don't come from Syria and Saudi. Those are terrorists. 2) Name a single war that went "exactly as expected". 3) Your backhanded insinuation that we're better off with Saddam in power and no definitive word on WMD's, than we are with no Saddam and no WMD's, is ludicrous on it's face. 4) I think this ten-times-longer-than-it-needed-to-me diatribe by Sullivan, is just his ego flailing wildly to try to convince himself that it's ok to vote for the wrong guy.

If you're agreeing with that, if you have a hard time getting past that... that is a miserable failure, by your conscience.

[Paperdoll]

Where is Everett Dirksen when we need him? Oh. Well then, where is someone like Everett Dirksen when we need him?

In reality, Arcadia. GWB comes legions closer than J (Jackass) F(Foney)Kerry (Kommie) in filling that bill.

[xzins]

Sullivan was a plant from the beginning.

Any conservative who didn't know that is naive.

Sullivan doesn't care about america. He cares about the next guy his HIV+ super-ego can screw.

[cricket]

"The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple."

Well, now Kerry is saying the absence of the 'explosives' is a viable threat to everyone! You/he/they cannot have it both ways.

With the UN Security team on Saddam's dole - France/Germany and probably Russia and no doubt a few others. . .what WOULD we have found; and when?

What/when would the UN'inspectors' have found that they did not find in twelve years - no doubt, very lucrative years of 'hunting' for WMD's. . .(right!).

The truth of the matter is; we know Saddam had connections to Osamma; we know (almost for certain; if not for certain) that one covert UN function was the funneling of money to terrorist groups - most likely AlQueda. . .as we were 'waiting'. . .then hunting. . .waiting for Iraq to comply with what. . .UN sanctions (?) - another joke!

And finally, monies going to them as we are at war with them. So who/where is the enemy? We know where it was happening and who was making it all possible.

The ferment/ the money/the availability was sourced in Iraq; by Saddam and the UN and other companies now 'food for oil' program. (One of which belonged to Mark Rich. . .how big was that deposit made by Mark, in a Swiss bank for THAT pardon?) Well, I digress. . .

The ONLY thing to do; was to dismantle this entire bogus UN circus and Saddams tortuous regime and take out some terrorist as well; and take the lid off the whole ugly pot.

IMHO. . .

As to the question:Who better to take on a Marxist regime? NOT A MARXIST for sure!

What do people think Kerry IS; in his real life?

[weegee]

Same sex marriage no doubt.

That or he likes to watch fireworks.

[sam_whiskey]

"The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.

Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake "

Could those results really have been avoided?? Only if we sit on our hands and take no action---not a viable option. "Miserable failure"?? Miserable failure=Saddam Hussein still in power and attempting to develop WMDs.

Why are you using Kerry-speak??

[geedee]

The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.
Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake
I have a hard time getting past these two issues as well

There are ONLY two things one can say with absolute certainty when one goes to war . . .
1. Soldiers will die.
2. Your intel will be wrong.

To expect anything much less everything to go as planned is simply naive.

Did GW think Iraq had WMD's? Absolutely. As did Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, the UN, and anyone else with a measurable IQ. So-Dumb Hussein said he had WMD's. EVERY intelligence service in the world agreed with him. After all, seeing the hell-storm he was about to face, wouldn't a "sane" man do everything in his power to prove to the world he didn't have WMD's if, in fact, he didn't have WMD's?

So-Dumb Hussein turned out to be an insane mass murderer instead of just a mass murderer but doubting ourselves now, after we've saved thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of Iraqis from being murdered in the future plays right into the hands of the panty-waist tree-huggers.

So-Dumb flaunted every UN Resolution passed to hold him accountable. Blame him for the WMD fiasco. Or blame the various intelligence services. Or blame the UN Inspection Teams. But GW isn't personally responsible for there not being any WMD's in Iraq. He can only deal with the facts as they're presented to him.

We'd had eight years of shadow-boxing as our enemies murdered American civilians, soldiers, and innocents with impunity under Pee Wee Clinton before GW came on the scene. Would you rather see us return to THAT?

If so, you reveal your true colors.

Has GW made some mistakes? Absolutely. But I'd much rather have a President who makes mistakes while he's attacking our enemies than a President who makes mistakes while he's hiding under the UN's skirt as our enemies pick us off at will.

We need a President who's willing to make the tough decisions, then act on them, then have enough cojones to follow through on them until our enemies are either killed, captured, or made to realize that Americans will not be used as target practice.

By the way . . . how many more attacks has there been on American soil since 9-11?