Sullivan accuses Michelle of “dark insinuations” about 9/11
posted at 4:53 pm on May 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
MM and See-Dubya have already responded but they both missed an obvious point so I’ve got to pile on. Is Andrew Sullivan actually chiding someone else for engaging in “dark explanations and allegations of possible federal cover-ups”? Journey back with me in time to last August, dear reader, where in a two-week period he managed to float not one, not two, but three separate conspiracy theories about the Bush administration, each one nuttier than the last.
Dean Barnett nailed him on August 3rd for posting a YouTube clip that alleged Dick Cheney’s hunting accident was less than an accident. The producer of that video? Alex Jones, one of America’s foremost 9/11 conspiracy theorists, owner of the raving lunatic PrisonPlanet website, and of course chat buddy with Sullivan’s new political hero, Ron Paul. (Sully later explained that he had no idea who Jones was.) Ace nailed him on August 16th, six days after news of the UK airline plot broke, for hinting that Ned Lamont’s primary win over Joe Lieberman might have had something to do with the timing of the announcement. In the same post, Sully raised logistical questions about the passports the suspects had and the imminence of the attack, not entirely unreasonably given the paucity of information at the time — but of course the same might be said of the column Michelle wrote six months after 9/11 to which he’s now pointing as evidence of “dark” insinuations. A minor difference between the two: Michelle wasn’t questioning jihadist culpability for 9/11 whereas Sullivan was questioning the so-called airline plot, but let’s not let that get in the way of a good smear.
So much for the prelude. He was saving his best stuff for the next day, August 17, and Ace nailed him again. It’s worth reproducing the relevant passage in full so that no one thinks I’m distorting what he said. Ace added the exclamation point in brackets, but who can blame him?
I have long wondered whether Cheney and Rumsfeld ever believed that their job was to build a new democracy in Iraq. Rumsfeld had dealt with and supported Saddam in the past; Cheney was extremely suspicious of occupying Iraq in 1990. One subversive theory - which I’m not endorsing, just airing - is that both merely wanted to turn the Saddam regime to rubble, and then play along with neocon democracy supporters, while making sure that the military was never given enough resources to do nation-building. Then Cheney and Rumsfeld could prove their point about the impossibility of reforming the Muslim world, and promote the view that we need merely to pummel enemies, project military fear across the region, and deter Islamo-fascism by “shock and awe.” The Likud strategy, in other words.
Under this interpretation, Bush was too trusting or dumb to understand the deviousness of their plan to fail in Iraq; Wolfowitz saw it too late and got out; Rice is stuck managing the debris that a democracy-promoting president and a democracy-hostile Pentagon created. The troops were just pawns in Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s strategy. This interpretation would mean that incompetence is not the issue. Cheney and Rumsfeld have succeeded: they have turned Iraq into a failed state, removed its capacity to make WMDs, and detonated a regional Sunni-Shi’a war. Now they want to use the same brutalist strategy against Iran. This theory is probably [!] too complex and subtle to be true. The screw-up theory of history is more often the most plausible. But it does make some internal sense - if you assume that Cheney and Rumsfeld are not complete incompetents.
Just “airing it,” mind you. Just asking questions. And I do love the flourish about “the Likud strategy.”
I stopped reading him regularly after that so there must be countless more “dark” pearls of wisdom he’s dispensed since then, every last one of which will naturally be Bush’s fault for having shaken Sully’s faith in government so deeply that insane, inane conspiracy theories are now presented as credible “alternative explanations” on the websites of Time magazine and the Atlantic. As I said at the time:
There’s literally no degree of conspiratorial craziness that Sullivan will not excuse — or indulge in himself — so long as it’s presented in terms of skepticism towards Bush. Ace accuses him of engaging in de facto 9/11 Trutherism, which sounds unfair until you realize how well it fits the pattern. If you really pressed him, I’m sure Sully would dismiss Dylan Avery as a kook — while also noting, with exquisite sadness, that he can understand how people would think Bush capable of such a thing.
No wonder he’s voting for Paul.
Update: Ace e-mails to say this post simply won’t be complete without a link to the Daily Dementia graphic.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I don’t really understand the point of even bring this up. Michelle is a journalist and was not connected to the event. She didn’t have any influence on NIST’s conclusions on 9/11 or the 9/11 Commission.
So really, this just stinks desperation from the 9/11 Deniers. If you really want to take a look at someone who has been changing stories and has a grasp over the truth movement, look at William Rodriguez. Why aren’t the 9/11 Deniers mentioning his contradicting stories?
MarkyX on May 23, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Since when do facts ever stand in the way of these idjits?
Mazztek on May 23, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Nice catch. I hadn’t even seen that Sullivan had glommed on to this until Michelle mentioned it. I was just responding to the tool at Prison Planet who thinks “an intimate call from [Michelle’s] friend Bill O’Reilly” turned her to the dark side, aka reality.
see-dubya on May 23, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Sully is such a prima donna, he’s gotta be the star of his own little drama. He’s a link thief, takes other peoples’ stuff without giving hattips, as Ace points out regularly, so i thought I’d remind everyone of that. He’s one of Ron Paul’s nutbar supporters, and his childish behavior here is typical of them.
He’s desperate for a blog fight to boost his stature, he’s hated by the right (except for “TRUE” conservatives like him) and the left isn’t dumb enough to tie themselves in with the guy because they know he’s treacherous, so he’s going for the biggest conservative blogger in the neighborhood to boost his status, which happens to be Michelle.
I think his situation is making him take a gamble, hes lost the right forever, and the left doesn’t trust him, so he’s desperate to attack the right enough that the left will take his sorry ass in. That’s my assessment of this and all the other sniping he’s been doing at Michelle, particularly as of late, he’s really started ratcheting it up.
Oh, and I know, the fact I point that out makes me a Christianist Caesarist Homophobe, right Sully?
Bad Candy on May 23, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the following sum up Andrew Sullivan’s career:
I don’t pay much attention to the guy, but that seems to be it to me.
If so, I wonder why anyone pays him much attention.
thirteen28 on May 23, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Just one question:
Who the hell is this Andrew Sullivan guy?
Enrique on May 23, 2007 at 5:15 PM
It’s really sad how often Sully’s embarrassed routinely by his archives. He’s sunk to the Greenwald level of the blogger most easily debunked.
Topsecretk9 on May 23, 2007 at 5:15 PM
JUMPED THE SHARK, did he?
…….whack job…….
seejanemom on May 23, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I accuse Sullivan of deranged irrelevancy. Granted, I’ve only been on the blogosphere for the last couple of years, but Sullivan’s opinion about anything has always been a matter of supreme indifference to me. I’ve never understood why anybody gives a shiny rat’s ass what that pinhead thinks. All I can conclude is that blogging has existed sufficiently long enough to produce has-beens already.
ReubenJCogburn on May 23, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I think this must be true. Sometime after it became apparent he was really just a gay marriage one issue wonder his traffic took a dive.
Topsecretk9 on May 23, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I wonder, did Sully actually read Michelle’s column? Michelle asked exactly the kinds of questions that any good reporter should have given the circumstances, every single question she asked pertained directly to aspects of the incident that had been widely reported on yet at the time of her column not sufficiently investigated. Those investigations were eventually done and it was verified that hysterical reporting of unsubstantiated hearsay was the actual culprit.
As a journalist it would have been unethical and irresponsible for Michelle to have ignored such questions given the widespread degree to which the incidents provoking the questions had been published. Even more unethical and irresponsible than those whose hysterical rush to publish every unsubstantiated rumor as fact before vetting the authenticity of those rumors was.
Sully has clearly gone over the deep end and lost what creditability he may once have had, and like most drowning victims he is desperately clutching at anything he can in an vain effort to save himself.
doriangrey on May 23, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I think that’s totally wrong. Sullivan thinks he’s the most important and influential blogger in the world and probably imagines that he’s lending Ron Paul his mighty helping hand here by throwing mud at Michelle.
Allahpundit on May 23, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Allah, that could be, so maybe my analysis is wrong. He’s always been about reaching his conclusion through emotion first, and then use his admittedly stellar education to build a “rational” explanation of his beliefs. He is delusional, so maybe I attributed rational thought to what can be more readily explained by his long track record of guidance by emotion and narcissicism.
Whatever…
Bad Candy on May 23, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Hmmm, my old latin teacher said if you throw enough mud some of it is bound to stick.
The moonbat left employ the same strategy with the pungent manure they sling.
MarkB on May 23, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Andrew has an Orwell quote across the top of his blog. It reads:
Can I just point out what’s in front of my own nose? Andrew Sullivan has become a certifiable nutcase.
Kensington on May 23, 2007 at 6:08 PM
It’s unfair to say Sullivan never gives hat tips. Why just now, he hat tipped his fellow conservative, Juan Cole. He also got in another dig at Michelle for overreacting to poll on Muslim assimilation.
Why does anyone on the right give a damn what he thinks? He’s got the vapors for Obama and is busy slamming Romney (guess why) and building up Ron Paul as the only true conservative in the race.
Please, he’s a drama queen not a serious pundit.
JackStraw on May 23, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Oh good grief. Sullivan has a major legitimate point. It’s you guys calling everyone that questions anything the government does as “Trutherism” that’s the problem he’s pointing out.
Problems with the 9/11 Commission Report most people in this community agreed on a short time ago included Able Danger, AQ ties with Iraqi intelligence pointed out by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, “the wall” and Jamie Gorelick’s attempts at coverup, Sandy Burger’s destruction of evidence, and so on.
None of that is in the “truther” realm.
“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Typewriter King on May 23, 2007 at 6:31 PM
I find it absolutely remarkable, even for Sully, that he keeps insisting upon linking to these pro-Paul YouTube videos.
Does he even bother to read the whack-job comments they post?
Not to mention how they make a point of deleting any and all comments that dare to question Dear Leader Paul. How very, Stalinist.
Ron
PerotPaul supporters are pretty much in Hale-Bopp territory at this point.The Ugly American on May 23, 2007 at 6:33 PM
That’s patent nonsense, and this has nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission report. This is yet another case of Sullivan trying to smear Michelle when his hands are dirty with conspiracizing. I gave you three absurd examples in this very post. Quit carrying water for him.
Allahpundit on May 23, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Did (s)he actually say it in Latin?
Cuz that would be cool! =)
docob on May 23, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Did you pull that from his Wikipedia bio? ; )
Seriously though….that just about sums up his entire thought process.
The Ugly American on May 23, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Someone who’s once good mind sadly left him.
Entelechy on May 24, 2007 at 12:37 AM
He’s just this guy, see. Well, he’s more than that. He’s a gay, conservative, “Christian” journalist. Emphasis on the gay, because his defensiveness about it destroys in him what may have been valid about the other descriptors.
He calls Christians who believe that the Bible denounces homosexuality “Christianists”, and bashes them for having a bogus faith, and for being as dangerous in their “fundamentalism” (he misuses the term) as the radical islamists. (There’s other issues he applies that meme to, but that’s his bread and butter) He also loves to tell everyone that there are no “real” conservatives left (except himself, of course)
There’s more, but you can find plenty for yourself without breaking a sweat.
Freelancer on May 24, 2007 at 6:27 AM
Just let Randy Andy Sullivan marry his boyfriend and maybe he will shut up and go away.
Hilts on May 24, 2007 at 8:33 AM
Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
Brat on May 24, 2007 at 8:58 AM
I went back and read Michelle’s post 6 months after 9/11. She raised some very legitimate questions. I looked through her archives and can’t find that she ever answered them. If she did I would love to read it.
Spacen on May 24, 2007 at 12:12 PM