shotbanner.jpeg

October 27, 2004

Surely, Surely Not

Lileks on Sullivan and his endorsement:

But peace, in the end. To repeat:

He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation

Is it instructive to note which side Sen. Kerry instinctively inhabited in the 80s? Apparently not. Because now he knows that if terrorists strike, he runs the risk of discrediting his party. Got that? Runs the risk. Of discrediting his party. Of all that the theats he might face, apparently that's the one that seals the deal. Look: The guy voted against the first Gulf War. What else do you need to know? UN thumbs up, global test, allies coming out the wazoo, and he voted no. Because that’s who he is. There are lots of Democrats with hard-core pro-defense no-nonsense smite-the-fascist records. He ain't one of them. One might reasonably assume he would only commit US forces unless they were under the command of the Vulcans, and only then if the Federation High Council had given up on the Organians coming in and making everyone’s guns disappear in their hands. If they don't? Back the Sandinistas and hope for the best.

In 1991, the Gulf War had the backing not only of the French and Germans - but of the Egyptians and Syrians. Kerry still voted against it.

He is not, has never been, can never be serious about national security.

Posted by Mitch at October 27, 2004 07:54 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Sullivan's "Dish" in the days & months after 9/11 played a big role in my transformation into a proud neo-con. As the war in Iraq unfolded his only criticisms of Bush were that we weren't being aggressive enough. Then he came completely unglued during the various state debates over gay marriage, and he seemed to follow the same progression of thought we have seen time and time again: A visceral dislike of W's moral clarity/certainty, which then colors opinions of all other W actions, which then causes the person to see in Kerry all of the things that they desparately want to see. In other words, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), which preceeds the end of logic.
It is laughable to say that Kerry will prosecute the war on terror as aggresively as Bush. Nothing in his history gives any indication that this is true. Quite the opposite.
His default position is, and always has been, appeasement -- even when as Mitch points out the Global Test' has been passed (Gulf War '91).
A year ago it would have been unthinkable that Sullivan would have endorsed a candidate whose election would cause mass celebrations in the 'Arab street.' That was before he contracted BDS. Luckily, I believe that there are thousands of people like me -- 9/11 realists who Sullivan helped convert and who now are unable to defy logic in the same way Sullivan now is. Unlike Sullivan we can't go 'home again', because that home is 9/10 thinking and placing our security in the hands of someone who has never been able to figure out who our enemies and friends are.

Posted by: chriss at October 27, 2004 12:54 PM

Sully has brushed off Lilek's fisking, saying James hasn't learned anything from the past year.
Great logic, Andrew: You're unhappy that the president hasn't run the perfect war (which, by the way, would make it history's first perfect war), so you opt instead for a candidate who in 1991 acted unilaterally, in defiance of the global test, and voted to maintain Saddam as president of Kuwait.
Brilliant.
Makes me want to oppose gay marriage strictly on the grounds that Sully might gain citizenship and the right to vote :)

Posted by: chriss at October 27, 2004 02:29 PM
hi