Andrew Sullivan: John Kerry's Unofficial Secretary of State (and Defense!)

Reading Kausfiles, I came across this interesting link:

I approve of [the Economists' endorsement of Kerry]--though it's always a shaky moment in these non-peacenik endorsements when the writer tries to convince himself or herself that Kerry won't bail out on Iraq prematurely, isn't it? (Kerry has been "forthright about the need to win in Iraq," but do you trust him and if so why? Because Andrew Sullivan's blogging will keep him honest?) ...

What on earth could he man by that last question? Did Andrew Sullivan actually suggest that he'd keep Kerry focused like a laser on victory in Iraq?

It couldn't be. It just could not be. Not even someone as obviously vain and solipsistic as the Shrill Shill could possible suggest something like that.

Then again: Maybe he could after all.

Sullivan, fresh off glowingly quoting some dope calling him a more important political force than all the liberal 527's put together, quotes Marty Peretz of the New Republic thus:

John Kerry speaks, not unfairly, of George W. Bush's habits of denial. But Kerry himself is in denial. He is in denial about the United Nations. He is in denial about the Australian election that returned to office for an unprecedented fourth term its prime minister who has been, with his country, a pillar of the Iraq coalition. He is in denial about Japan, whose government, unlike Germany's and France's, does not carp at the United States. He is in denial about Afghanistan, where, for the first time in history, men and women, riding on donkeys and walking barefoot across great distances, have exercised the right to choose those who govern them. He is in denial about Iraq itself. The Jordanian daily Al Ra'i recently called Moqtada Al Sadr's apparent retreat from armed struggle "a farewell to arms" that is as politically significant as the establishment of the provisional authority. Has Kerry come close to recognizing this? Has he acknowledged that the Bush administration has negotiated with nato a plan to send, starting in November, up to 3,000 soldiers to train Iraqi troops? These soldiers will be under the command of General David Petraeus, who is mustering the military might and political will to retake much of the Sunni triangle. Many Iraqis now have second thoughts about opposing the coalition. Even the BBC has said as much. But Kerry hasn't.

Sounds pretty damning. What's Sullivan's response?

Yes, there's denial on both sides. Whose is more dangerous? That's the question. And if Kerry wins, he can expect to be subjected to relentless scrutiny from pro-war types like Marty and, ahem, your humble blogger.

Ah. I see. Sullivan is now making the case to "independent eagles" that it's safe to vote for Kerry -- despite his profoundly McGovernite worldview -- because, after all, Andrew Sullivan and his scary-important blog will make the world safe for democracy.

Are.

You.

Kidding.

Me.

Is Ecstacy a hallucinogen? How about a euphoric? It's both, right?

Just checking.

posted by Ace at 03:10 AM

| Access Comments