The Spectacle Blog
Careful, Mr. Hogberg. Though you may smell a rat, and not a coincidence, where Mr. Sullivan grabs the standard against Bush on the war, his argument about Christians and Christianism is not wrong because of that coincidence -- nor wrong because of his "desperate" support for candidate Kerry nor for any of the other reasons external to the argument itself.
When elements of the conservative base are assaulted as bigots and indeed as anti-conservatives, I think the thing to do is dare to take the salvo at face value and see whether the charges stick. (I have tried to do so here and here.) An adherence to that sort of bravery strikes me as fairly acquitting not just itself but the wrongly accused, too. This is all to the better for the reason that attacking complete straw men is somewhat beneath Sullivan intellectually. It should be beneath us as well.
Our Jed Babbin will be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight to discuss how the New York Times is destroying our national security. Be sure to tune in.
I enjoyed it too. "Chrisianist" is inflammatory, clearly intended to equate Christians who disagree with Sullivan to Isalmists.
I pretty much stopped reading Andrew Sullivan after his intellectually dishonest attempt to explain why he was voting for Kerry. He laughingly argued that it was because Kerry would do a better job of fighting the War on Terror, but anyone with a brain knew it was due to gay marriage.
Sullivan called those who made such a charge as engaging in an "unanswerable smear". But it is worth noting that if you go through his archives, you'll notice almost no criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War before February 2003, when Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. After that, Sullivan suddenly became concerned about the "administration's incompetence and arrogance in Iraq."
Coincidence? Yeah, right.
Pop culture and government mix! Rush is in Washington, D.C., moderating a panel at the Reagan Building (hosted by The Heritage Foundation) about the ever-popular show, 24, and the War on Terror. The panel is subtitled "Fact, Fiction, or Does It Matter?" Panelists include Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, James Jay Carafano of The Heritage Foundation, the producers and writers of 24, plus some of the show's stars including "Chloe" and "Tony Almeida".
Read about how the panel came about here.
Both New York Times editor Bill Keller and LA Times Washington bureau chief, Doyle McManus have been speaking publicly about the supposed balancing act they made in facilitating leaks to terrorist groups about how federal law enforcement and intelligence organizations are monitoring their financial dealings.
Make no mistake, this may actually be a more damaging leak to U.S. anti-terrorism activities than the leak about international call monitoring or the secret prisons. Why? Because the increassingly successful ability to identify and track the money hurt terrorists in two ways: 1. it identified the sources of the dollars financing terror and 2. it gave intelligence and law enforcement a peek inside timelines, planning, techniques and individuals involved in the proces of laundering and distributing funds for terrorist activities. Six years ago, the U.S. capability to do this was weak. For a period, it was stronger. Now? Who knows?