INDC Journal

« The Current Plan on Iran | Main | »

November 22, 2005
New Game

Posted by Bill

It's called "Andrew Sullivan or Kos:"

Quote 1:

Marty Lederman has some important background on what Geneva's Article 3 means, how, before Cheney-Rumsfeld, the United States had adhered to it strictly for fifty years, and how the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that adherence be restored. Money quote:
At page 380 of its Report, the Commission recommended that the United States "engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists," and expressly urged the U.S. to "draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict," which was "specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply." Common Article 3's minimum standards, reasoned the 9/11 Commission, "are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law."

Except for rogue states that refuse to abide by even minimal standards of decent treatment. I.e. Bush's America.

Quote 2:

Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

Like torture, the apologists try to justify our use of such abhorrent techniques, oblivious to the fact that our moral standing is in tatters and our crediblity beyond repair. We aren’t just losing the war in Iraq, we are losing our credibility in the world.

Getting tougher and tougher to tell them apart, isn't it?

Answer: Quote 1, Quote 2

Related: Jeff Goldstein takes apart Kos's repellant moral equivalence:

In Kos’s world, there is no difference between US military and the regime of Saddam Hussein—between humiliation and rape rooms ; between the sanctioned use of WP against entrenched terrorists and the use of nerve agents and WP on Kurdish civilians; between fighting to free a people and fighting to keep them subjugated.

Such moral relativism is not clever or nuanced, though it likes to pretend to be. Instead, it is obfuscatory for the sake of personal aggrandizement: Kos and his ilk like to play as the conscience of the country, but what they are, really, are the kinds of intellectually feeble brats who have come to take for granted the very system they hope to tear down.

As does Dave Price:

The kind of equivalence argument Kos is making should truly disturb people, because it not only trivializes real torture and real war crimes, but more insidiously also degrades and despoils the very process of debate that is the lifeblood of free democracy by blurring the definitions of the concepts the debate is built on. What is torture? What are chemical weapons? Why, they’re whatever we say they are, and we’ll say whatever benefits us politically. In some sense, this is what Orwell was trying to warn us against: the death of objective truth, and the terrible consequences that follow.

Posted by Bill at November 22, 2005 10:18 AM | TrackBack (6)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2166

Comments

Are you trying to say that Sully isn't a Bush-hater? Last I read him he claimed to be a conservative (or hawk or the like) but I never got that impression.

I don't get it.

Posted by: Tom_with_a_Dream at November 22, 2005 10:34 AM

I'm not sure that I get your comment.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 22, 2005 10:39 AM

I was saying that, like Kos, Sullivan would be happy to see the Bush Administration go away (the last time I stopped in anyway, some time ago).

To see that he is critical of the Administration, like Kos, is not a big surprise to me.

Although, I'll admit that Sullivan's comments seem somewhat convoluted to me, going round and round. At least Kos' are to the point (of hating Bush et al).

Posted by: Tom_with_a_Dream at November 22, 2005 10:49 AM

Well sure. But what's remarkable to me is how hyperbolic Sullivan's comments have become, not just the fact that he's criticizing Bush. The shrill tone of his debate is remarkable.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 22, 2005 10:51 AM

Sully married yet?

Just, y'know, askin'.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 22, 2005 10:59 AM

Sully said just yesterday he still doesn't *hate* Bush. That's some comfort I guess. But all other bets are off.

Posted by: cassandra at November 22, 2005 11:14 AM

Bill, is it time to start up the Sully Bush-Hate Watch yet?

Posted by: Larry at November 22, 2005 11:34 AM

Even though he believes Bush has turned America into a

"....rogue state that refuse to abide by even minimal standards of decent treatment..."

he still doesn't hate him?

Posted by: B Moe at November 22, 2005 12:23 PM

Except for rogue states that refuse to abide by even minimal standards of decent treatment. I.e. Bush's America

Does this mean we're now part of the Axis of Evil?

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 22, 2005 12:31 PM

We'll always be able to identify Sully by his gob-smackingly obvious verbal tics.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 22, 2005 10:26 PM

Bill,

I don't really agree, unless your only point is the shrillness. Sullivan is extremely exercised over the torture issue and yes, I do agree that he has gotten a bit too shrill at times. His last line in that quote you cited is an unnecessary bit of hyperbole that will turn a lot of people off.

But he really has made an effort to be fair on a number of his criticisms, and I think he's intellectually honest. He's always willing to field an argument against his views. It does him a tremendous disservice to compare him to Kos.

Look at the quotes. It's obvious that Kos has done the bottom one. The conflating of "WP" and "chemical weapons" into "WP chemical weapons" as if they are the same thing. The simplification of the issue so that he can play the moral equivalence card. He isn't even slightly honest about the underlying arguments. He wants to create confusion just so he can score points. This sort of behavior is far beneath Sullivan.

Posted by: Dave W at November 23, 2005 04:14 AM

I don't really agree, unless your only point is the shrillness.

Yes, the shrillness is the main thing.

Also, I'd say that Sullivan IS honest, though often not intellectually - emotionally.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 23, 2005 07:45 AM


Ho-hum. Not the first time I've heard "OMG, Traitor, Bush Hater" leveled at Sullivan. But I've never heard the "intellectual honest" vs. "emotional honest" one. Wonder how that works...

And all this time, I was told you're either honest or you're not.

Posted by: rabit at November 23, 2005 11:32 AM

Well rabit, apparently you're immune to nuance.

First of all, I didn't call Sullivan a "traitor."

Second, emotional honesty would involve honestly feeling/believing your argument in the heat of the moment.

Intellectual honesty would involve that argument also fulfilling a pattern of logical and intellectual consistency within the context of your previous arguments.

People can be one and not the other (emotionally but not intellectually), and are all the time, in fact.

For example: I'm fairly certain that you wholeheartedly believe in that critique you just wrote about my comment - however, I'm also relatively certain that you have no idea how shallow it was, being as it was designed to attack my comment from an ideological perspective, rather than fully understand and effectively rebut it with substance.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 23, 2005 11:57 AM

I didn't say you specifically. Sorry if it sounded that way, my fault.

Second, emotional honesty would involve honestly feeling/believing your argument in the heat of the moment.

No, I prefer to look at purely what someone says. By your definition, a serial-murderer could be "emotionally honest" when he states the voices in his head told him to do it. I don't buy that.

For example: I'm fairly certain that you wholeheartedly believe in that critique you just wrote about my comment...

No, you're perfectly correct that Andrew Sullivan sounds a lot like KOS these days. But, among the small handful of conservative blogs that I read regularly, his is not among them.

How can I write a substantive rebut to a non-substantive argument in the first place? You say nothing of the (pun-unintended) meat of Andrew Sullivan's argument, only that it sounds like KOS. Therefore, by implication, Sullivan is wrong?

Or perhaps both are right?

I bet he secretly works for the Democratic Underground, too. :)

Posted by: rabit at November 23, 2005 01:11 PM

Nope, rabit, he openly works for Time.

Posted by: Matt Moore at November 23, 2005 08:06 PM

By your definition, a serial-murderer could be "emotionally honest" when he states the voices in his head told him to do it. I don't buy that.

But that could be exactly correct - a schizophrenic serial murderer that hears voices in his head IS emotionally honest. The phenomenon of schizophrenia creating incessant auditory hallucinations that sound literally as if someone is whispering in your ear exists.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 23, 2005 08:39 PM

I guess if someone is hearing voices, then it's no more 'emotional' than 'intellectual' honesty. They simply are hearing voices. I would not call a sociopathic liar 'emotionally honest' by any stretch, even if they 'honestly' believe their own lies.

I always thought the word 'honesty' meant being objectively truthful, regardless of one's emotional/intellectual state. Maybe that's just oversimplification. :)

That's really all I was curious about.

Posted by: rabit at November 24, 2005 12:04 AM

Are you trying to say that Sully isn't a Bush-hater? Last I read him he claimed to be a conservative (or hawk or the like) but I never got that impression.
I do not agree. Go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

Posted by: warsaw apartments at October 10, 2006 06:55 AM

Posted by: karel at October 22, 2006 09:26 PM

Posted by: viagra viagra at November 14, 2006 10:48 AM

b9fe38db58a3 Hi short url short url

Posted by: short url at December 20, 2006 06:31 AM

opexvfszm qfjmcib qhribzavw vdtzly ufrx soldkzub hemdytpl

Posted by: tlsq sgzb at March 9, 2007 09:00 AM

Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob

Posted by: Cellphone at April 12, 2007 06:36 AM

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Posted by: Alexander Haggerty at April 16, 2007 07:39 AM

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Posted by: Alexander Haggerty at April 16, 2007 07:41 AM

The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...

Posted by: Giovanny Valle at April 17, 2007 03:14 AM