The Daily Dementia: Sullivan Calls Obama a "Neocon"

Obama, Neocon In Chief

From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed,

Has Andrew Sullivan officially come out against the War in Afghanistan? If not, what's this business about "extending and deepening" the war there? Did Obama not run on a platform promising the Great Overmountain Invasion of Pakistan, vowing to win whereas Bush had "taken his eye off the ball"?

As the right has long contended, the Democrats' claim that they wanted to "win" in Afghanistan, and only wanted to lose one of our two wars, was always a fig-leaf. The logic of surrender tends to demand losses in both wars, or in neither.

The left, collectively, has vowed for years that, while it wanted to abandon Iraq to the likes of Zarqawi's successors, it was all gung-ho to finally "get bin Ladin." But since Obama's election, they've felt increasingly comfortable urging retreat in Afghanistan too.

Bill Maher, for example did so expressly a month or two ago, suggesting, strongly, that we abandon Afghanistan. I don't remember hearing this line when The One was running for president. He was on better behavior, then, doing his part to convince the public that the left could be safely entrusted with the presidency.

Did Sullivan just let slip out a position he's secretly held for a while, but has been suppressing as part of the left's collective agreement to pretend they're interested in winning at least one war? I don't follow him much anymore, so I don't know. Was this a slip-up or has been making the case for surrender in Afghanistan, too?

Gif courtesy of McGurk.

posted by Ace at 02:35 PM

| Access Comments