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
Mr. Sullivan is a homosexual activist and a slave to his obsession. He would endorse whichever candidate he sees as most likely to advance the homosexual agenda. All else is secondary no matter what he says.
The bottom line is buggery ...
1. WMD's, plans, and just-in-time recipes have been found.
2. The insurgency is bogus -- it is what Bush says. Originated and funded by terrorists and frightened terrorist regimes. The proof....they waited until after the hot season to begin the insurgency. Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, etc. all had June, July, August, September to regroup. The danger to Americans began in Oct/Nov of 2003.
There was no "plan for an insurgency." We are fighting international terrorisms REGROUPED plans in Iraq. Good for us! Fight terrorism over there instead of over here. Draw them into a killing zone. EXCELLENT STRATEGY!
Finally, count the number of incidents in a day and what the incident is.
They are LOW IN NUMBER, propaganda intensive, militarily insignificant attacks directed primarily at their own people.
They are afraid to take on American forces because every time they have we have turned them into bloody, messy puddles of DNA!
We ARE winning!
Don't count on the media to let you know this.
You will see the truth of our continuing progress once President Bush is re-elected and the terrorist's hopes go out the window.
They enemy is going to become very, very discouraged.
Other neocon warbloggers are also backing Kerry (Oxblog, etc.). With Sullivan, gay marriage is the main reason, but with the others, it looks like a gamble that Kerry will secure what they want and Bush will put it at risk. It's akin to a Johnson Democrat backing Nixon in 1968 betting that Nixon would follow through on Vietnam better than Humphrey. Part of the gamble today is that Kerry will be a weak President domestically and feel compelled to hold the line on Iraq, yet prove competent both at home and abroad. Whether Kerry will satisfy them is hard to say, but it is quite a risk and involves plenty of assumptions that could blow up in their faces.
Do you really expect anyone to read all that s**t?
He was also a Gore voter in 2000. Sullivan has a fatal flaw... total self absorption and an ability to sublimate his pet social issues to national security.
And that's why I'm voting for him. Thanks Andrew.
Sullivan is full of it. The absence of WMD isn't a miserable failure.
There is ample proof of both manufacture and of intent to deliver. It's as plain as the nose on people's faces.
What people evidently want is large stockpiles of nuclear material. Most of that went to Syria, along with bio/chem agents that Syria deployed in Africa not two months ago.
Iraq is a front in a larger war, and Kerry's choice of campaign strategy - to politicize what is ultimately our national strategy of fighting this conflict on their soil rather than ours - has put us all in jeopardy by sapping our resolve to take the fight where it ultimately must go - Iran and Syria.
Nothing pure and simple about WMD's not being there. Iraq was a clear and present danger that had on multiple occasions publicly expressed the intent to attack America and Americans where ever they were found. On the basis of that, we could no longer afford to wait until a threat had manifested itself materially.
We struck pre-emptively.
The justification of such action is made best by your candidate Kerry on the floor of the Senate in 2002. You can look in Rush's archive for the transcript which played today.
Sullivan's points are garbage - every last one. Sullivan hates Bush because Bush opposes gay marriage. Period.
Post 9/11 Sullivan was a big Bush fan and then flipped when Bush came out for the FMA. That's it.
If you are going to peddal liberal analysis, try peddaling Christopher Hitchens instead. Man comes out and honestly says why he differs with Bush, but sees a complete absence of resolve to do what must be done in the middle east on the left.
It's a single issue election this year, my friend. The fact that you and I are still alive to have this discussion is the issue.
My friends think I'm well-informed; that's because I review the Free Republic everyday. I also read the New York Times, the Washington Post
There is your problem. Try branching out to more balanced intellectualy honest reading materials.
Try
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Also, try Hugh Hewitt.com and read the blogs he links to.
You have accepted Kerry as you accepted Clinton, refusing
to look beneath the surface to the dark slimy underside
which makes up both of those men.
Clinton brought you shame which you won't admit, Kerry
will bring you defeat and death, which you cannot avoid.
Fortunately, it's not up to you, WE the people could not
close our eyes to the filth and smut you and your party
have rubbed in our noses all this time, and we are going
to put a stop to it NOW.
Who would have believed Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens reversing roles.
This is nonsense.
The intelligence agencies of France, Germany, Russia, Isreal, Jordan and virtually EVERY nation INCLUDING those opposed to the war said the SAME THING America did about the existance tof WMDs. As did the UN.
For you to claim that this is a blow to America's credibility as if nobody else was saying so is simply dishonest.
Yeah, but will he actually VOTE for him?? Don't you think he will get stomach cramps?
"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".
I stopped reading right there and that sentence is absolute hogwash. International credibility?Hey Andrew why don't you do a whole expose on the U.N. Oil-For-Food Scandal??? Internatinal credibility---LMAO! (God I wish Ronald Reagan was still alive!) I have pics saved of Iraqi Fighter planes covered by monstrous piles of sand, does that mean we've found all the planes? No one considers the possibility that Saddam was 'lying, just to keep the world at bay'. He had scientists create chemical weapons to kill ( and literally test on) his own people. Those irrefutable pictures can be seen here.-----> http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
Am I to believe a Lying tyrant named Saddam Hussein didn't create any more Chemical Weapons since 1988, BECAUSE WE CAN'T FIND THEM NOW????? Anyone who believes that is a simply a ninny, a kook AND a liberal. He wanted the UN Inspectors out of his country and gave them the run-around for years.Why? Why? Why is that? All we heard about for YEARS was how he harassed the inspectors after 1992.
This G.D. Liberal Dogma makes me ill and is why I don't watch the Evening News anymore. I am confident there is a special place in hell for incessant liars.
bump
Do any conservatives look at his blog any more? Every time I take a peek, I just see warmed-over DNC talking points and interminable rants on the gay rights movement. Not much factual accuracy or historical knowledge. A complete waste of time.