Ace of Spades HQ

« Missing From Andrew Sullivan's Critiques: "I Was Wrong" | Main | The New JibJab.com Cartoon »

October 08, 2004

Wonder if Sullivan Will Quote This Bremer Statement

Sullivan's been a bear for Bremer's statement that we didn't have enough troops in Iraq-- a critique that once again dovetails nicely with Sullivan's partisan interest in attacking Bush while simultaneously protecting his ego from an admission of fault on his own part.

Greg tips to this fuller statement by Bremer:

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration,
the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top
priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to
take more responsibility for their own security. This
effort, financed in large measure by the emergency
supplemental budget approved by Congress last year,
continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on
Iraqis.

Partisan critics of the war feel free to make inconsistent criticisms. On one hand, they make much noise about the American forces feeling like "occupiers" to the residents of Iraq (or Afghanistan). But they will often in the same breath argue for much higher troop concentrations in these countries, apparently forgetting, conveniently enough, their previous claims about the need for a light footprint in Muslim countries. They forget this other criticism, one made from the left, just long enough to make a tough-sounding criticism from the right.

Life is a series of tradeoffs and guesstimates and just plain winging it, and war especially so -- but with many more life-and-death consequences. Sullivan pounds what he calls kneejerk partisan defenders of Bush, who never seem willing to concede any mistake on the President's behalf. But it is it any less kneejerk-partisan to make these conveniently-simplistic critiques without full exploring the tradeoff implicit in the decisions?

Is it perhaps the case that Kerry, and his champion Sullivan, are not quite nuanced enough in their analysis? Surely they must be ashamed to make arguments about war and peace which are so filled with troglodytic American simplissime.

Update! Corrected Link! Sorry for the loose shit.

posted by Ace at 10:38 AM

Comments

"But it is it any less kneejerk-partisan to make these conveniently-simplistic critiques without full exploring the tradeoff implicit in the decisions?"

Hast hit the mark and followed through to the hilt.

Unfortunately, the Left is not bothered by hypocrisy. Not.One.Bit.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! on October 8, 2004 10:52 AM

Missing also is the awareness that Tommy Franks had to adjust, on the fly, to Turkey's refusal to allow Fourth Mech to go through and attack from the north. A delay to bring the 4th Infantry Division around would have put the rest of the plan in jepardy because of deteriorating weather, not to mention the problems of supplying another engaged division over the same roads the others were using.

Posted by: Peter on October 8, 2004 11:06 AM

Ace--

I thought we discussed this before, but *please* do not use the word "bear" in any piece about Andrew Sullivan.

It oogs me out.

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 8, 2004 11:28 AM

Y'know, when I first started reading your site, I was fairly defensive about Andrew Sullivan and believed that he was justified in being peeved enough about gay marriage to not endorse Bush. I still believe that to an extent, seeing that the Log Cabin Republicans are also refusing to endorse him on the basis of that truly unconservative amendment.

But now, and perhaps it's always been this way, his blog amounts to a series of gob-smackingly vile adjectives and superficial criticisms to criticize President Bush. I find myself going to his site and holding my breath until I find some intellectually honest commentary. I can't wait until Nov. 1 or Nov. 2 when he finally lets the dam burst and endorses Kerry for his fiscal conservativeness, cautiousness in international affairs, willingness to criticize himself and Edwards's optimistic outlook and ability to bring America out of the doom and gloom of the past three year's with his sunny - and sexy! - demeanor.

For me, what really got me was his over the top criticisms of Jonah and his accusations of "kool-aid" drinking with Jay Nordlinger. Seriously dude, get over yourself.

Posted by: Dave #2 on October 8, 2004 12:48 PM

Time for a reality check. Mistakes were made in Iraq. No fooling! Guess what, mistakes were made in every single war America has fought. That doesn't make a war wrong. Should FDR/Eisenhower have been fired for failing to be prepared for the hedge rows in Normandy? Does it mean that D-Day was illegitimate? NO!!! The reason why the Democrats can't win the election is simple. They are only capable of being back seat drivers. They are followers, not leaders!!!

Posted by: Tanker Schreiber on October 8, 2004 01:03 PM

Starting to feel like Michael Corleone in Godfather 3? You try to ignore him until he gets so shrill, well, go get him Ace. It looks like Jonah Goldberg is sparing no words for Sullivan either (although he doesn't point him out by name).

I found Sullivan's attacks on Belmont Club especially vitriolic and distasteful. But then again, I've noticed that before =\. Wretchard is being such a class act in spite of it though.

Course I spent 5 pages ripping on him and calling Sullivan a box turtle. I'm proud to say I have no such class :)

Posted by: Elric on October 8, 2004 01:38 PM

I'm sure Sully's sore T-cells are to blame and as soon as they perk up he'll be able to see the error of his ways.... That or he is an intellectually dishonest one issue hack...

Posted by: James on October 8, 2004 02:48 PM

Elric well said. i have been following that debate as well. How dare Andrew Sullivan go after someone as brilliant Wretchard. Sullivan actually called wretchard a "partisan republican spinning the facts" Funny I believe I found the belmont club via the daily dish. has anyone else noticed that AS refers to the Belmont Club as "they". What is that about?

Posted by: lenni on October 8, 2004 03:24 PM

I dont want to defend Sullivan (he's more than capable) but I do share many of his views on Iraq. I simply havent come to the same conclusions about dumping Bush being productive. Anyway, I dont think the issue is whether we properly hit the ground running in Iraq. Anyone serious agrees that there was simply no way to anticipate how things would look, and obviously war never goes according to plan (ie the 4th ID). What pisses me off is the lack of flexibility and adaptation in the last year and a half. Bremer was a fiasco and Bush should have been on top of him. There should not have been _any_ squabbling in the occupation, it was a military occupation and the only way for it to be effective was to have undivided command. If Bremer had that authority, he never used it. The military carried their end brilliantly and the civilians totally failed. There was never the appreciation for how critical reconstruction was and how time was of the essence. Instead Iraq was treated like a highway project, and the administration bears that blame ultimately. For that I may never forgive Bush, but he's still the better man for the job.

Posted by: Mark Buehner on October 8, 2004 03:49 PM

Hey, Ace. Get over Sullivan. He's an intellectualy dishonest hack at this point.

Yes, I used to read him religiously too. He alternately eloquently re-enforced my thinking or challenged me to examine it in a different light. But them days is over.

I have NO sympathy for any supporters of Kerry. The contortions in reason required to argue for any of his policies without breaking into hysterical laughter is beyond the ability of anyone with a triple digit IQ. Has there ever been a worse candidate for President in the history of the United States? It says something scary about our country that he remains in serious contention.

Kerry has one idea to which he cleaves to the exclusion of all else. To get elected. Period.

Sullivan clutchs one idea above all other considerations. Sex with whom he pleases, however he pleases.

Both of them will perform any necessary mental gymnastics to support whatever policy appears most likely to achieve their goals - at this moment. If it becomes desirable to do a quick 180 to lend a voice to totally different ideas, they are fine with that. Like little children who only care about getting their way. And throwing tantrums when they don't.

Thinking people quit reading Sullivan long ago. Why keep him in the public eye any longer? He is a lost cause. And you risk appearing fixiated on him. If you MUST read his superior little screeds, do so in private. I'm here because I enjoy your take on things, not Sullivan's. (Or Willis, Marshall, or any of the other usual suspects.) Let his blog die a graceful death, as reasonable people realize he has nothing useful left to say.

Posted by: Bruce Badger on October 8, 2004 04:34 PM

What no one is mentioning is that HIV, as well as the anti-retroviral drugs, have deleterious effects on the central nervous system. Sullivan is on a downhill spiral, very much like someone with Alzheimer's. From now until the inevitable end, everything he says will be suspect.

Posted by: Doctor Who on October 8, 2004 04:47 PM

Ace,

Don't know if you've seen this, but Wretchard took Sullivan out back and gave him a spanking again.

Posted by: addison on October 8, 2004 05:33 PM

Hey Ace, DON'T "get over" Sullivan.

Better angels are NOT prevailing in this war of ideas, and you have to patiently slice like a fuckin' hammer until you've rendered that sore-ass hypocrite's blog into a greasy spot in the blogosphere.

Today's payday. Where's that PayPal button....

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! on October 8, 2004 05:53 PM

Sullivan is one sick puppy folks.

http://milkyloads.tripod.com/

Posted by: JimBob on October 8, 2004 07:41 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]