NeoCon Derangement Syndrome On Steroids
posted at 6:48 pm on June 19, 2009 by Legal Insurrection
printer-friendly
To read Andrew Sullivan’s posts on the suppression of the opposition in Iran, you would think American “NeoCons” (whoever they may be) were in the streets swinging batons from the backs of motorcycles, trashing the library at Tehran University, and breaking into homes in pursuit of demonstrators. Sullivan’s post, The Khamenei-NeoCon Agreement, is the latest in his recurring conspiracy theory that supporters of freedom for Iranians are actually against freedom for Iranians.
Sullivan is not alone, as many other bloggers have been affected by NeoCon Derangement Syndrome, but Sullivan by far is the most depraved, as the screen shot to the right demonstrates.
The election fraud, the demonstrations, the crack down, the shouts of Death to America, the beatings, the green banners carried in the streets, the millions on the march … it’s all an American NeoCon conspiracy.
And Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, he just got off the phone taking orders from Dick Cheney. Or was it Karl Rove? Or the Head of the Mormon church?
Cross-posted with updates at Legal Insurrection Blog
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
to a lesser extant we saw this by people like Chris Dickey, the New York Times, and others who said that people who didn’t trust Iran were somehow relieved with the results.
rob verdi on June 19, 2009 at 8:37 PM
It wouldn’t surprise me if Sullivan claimed Trig was on the back of one of those motorcycles wielding a club. He’s just that crazy.
Blake on June 19, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Sullivan is a kook.
pearson on June 19, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Yeah, Sullivan is going off the rails again. I think it is time he talk another hiatus from his blog before he cracks up completely. Ace has a good post on him.
TrueNorth on June 19, 2009 at 9:01 PM
The essence of the Left is Unreason. The more powerful the Leftist intelligence, the greater the denial of the obvious and the embrace of the preposterous. Sullivan is a 32nd-degree black-belt, with oak clusters.
njcommuter on June 19, 2009 at 9:04 PM
It would help our side if blogs like HotAir would be a bit more multi-dimensional in the way they cover the varying views of Conservatives on this issue. Instead – we’re inundated by essentially one opinion – that America needs to stand up for the Iranian people (whatever that hell that means – it certainly doesn’t mean military intervention – so I suppose it means strongly worded “letters” or something – which is what we always criticize Obama for doing to North Korea – I digress).
HondaV65 on June 19, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Sorry, he seems like the typical gay Conservative to me.
hawkdriver on June 19, 2009 at 9:06 PM
OK, I give up. Someone who speaks Andy tell me what the hell he is talking about? I mean, the general Bushitler vibe is apparent, but other than that I’m mystified.
evergreen on June 19, 2009 at 9:17 PM
It’s time HotAir institute a policy that says unless the following people and – and like-minded individuals – say or do something relevant please ignore them: Andrew Sullivan; Catherine Parker; Colin Powell; David Brooks; David Frum; Peggy Noonan…
RMR on June 19, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Andy needs a mental straight jacket.
T J Green on June 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Um, why is it the “neocons” fault that some guys are burning a flag?
Speedwagon82 on June 19, 2009 at 9:53 PM
CHRISTIANISTS!!!!!
They are everywhere, even in Iran!
Mr. Joe on June 19, 2009 at 9:53 PM
I am totally convinced that no matter what Obama does on Iran, no matter how things turn out, if positive change happens it will be credited by Sullivan soely to Obama, if bad things happen Sullivan will fine it will not be Obama’s fault (in fact it would have been far worse but for Obama).
Mr. Joe on June 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM
According to Andrew Sullivan:
Dick Cheney, Christians, and Palin are always at fault.
Trig Palin is directing the Mullahs in Iran.
Mr. Joe on June 19, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Everyone who opposes gay marriage is part of the cabal.
Except Obama, of course.
Steven Den Beste on June 19, 2009 at 9:59 PM
… I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down
.
What a field day for the heat
A hundred thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down
.
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, Neocon come and take you away
.
Andy better stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down
Andy better stop …
Mike OMalley on June 19, 2009 at 10:11 PM
A Tale of Two Neocons: Or Andrew Sullivan’s Theory On How Jews Want Dinnerjacket To Win.
Mr. Joe on June 19, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Sullivan is seriously nuts. And The Atlantic condones this stuff?
hepcat on June 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Mike OMalley very good and proving that not all Irish are bat****crazy.
Mr. Joe on June 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Joe Klein, Leading with His Chin (Again) [Peter Wehner]
In a posting over at Time.com, Joe Klein writes this:
The Washington Post’s increasingly strident op-ed page offers a double-barreled neocon assault on President Obama’s Iran position today by Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz. And it’s interesting to see these fellows — among the smartest of the neos — deploy the usual intellectual shortcuts in the neoconservative bag of tricks: Broad, unsupported statements of opinion posing as fact . . . and false historical analogies.
Take Krauthammer. He boldly states this:
The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
They do? Which ones? Name one.
Okay. How about (for starters) Mohsen Makhmalbaf, described as Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s external spokesman? Foreign Policy magazine did an interview with him that includes this:
FP: There has been growing criticism here in Washington that U.S. President Barack Obama hasn’t said or done enough to support those demonstrating in the streets of Iran. Do you think Obama is being too careful? Or even that he is helping Ahmadinejad by being cautious?
MM: Obama has said that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Does he like it himself [when someone is] saying that there is no difference between Obama and [George W.] Bush? Ahmadinejad is the Bush of Iran. And Mousavi is the Obama of Iran.
Keep reading this post . . .
06/19 06:59 PMShare
Mr. Joe on June 19, 2009 at 11:38 PM
There is something out of balance in Sullivan, and it isn’t just presumably biological. The man has bought into his own drivel, and his brain is discharging the decaying gases he has spewed for too long to get the hits and attention that are his obsession.
If our country weren’t in such danger of disintegration from the actions of the radical progressives, I’d just hide out in my garden or walk in the woods and ignore it all until it blows over. Unfortunately, this time it can’t be ignored. This time they mean to destroy any semblance of the United States of America as it was founded and formed and evolved.
Sullivan is but one sick cell in that vast diabolical virus that’s attempting to destroy America. That’s why it’s no longer humorous. I can’t think of a single funny/sarcastic thing to say because I’m that concerned at this point. :-/
KendraWilder on June 19, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Gawd, no kidding. He’s insane. And notice his other presidential crush, Ron Paul and Obama, aren’t in any way shape or form all that concerned with the violence. Sully needs medication.
Topsecretk9 on June 20, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Look at the stuff he wrote in 2003 when the neoconservative movement was the most “serious” thing around and the same people he’s sucking up to now were tantrum-throwing toddlers. Sullivan is a follower by nature. His gimmick is to take what his side of the moment is saying and repeat it in the loudest, most grandoise manner possible. The fact that people take him seriously says a lot about the media.
Siobhan on June 20, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Hawkdriver shoutout! Hope you’re having some good downtime in Kandahar. Please tell your fellow warriors that they are in our thoughts and prayers. Rot 13 on: Unf lbhe fgbc ybff fvghngvba tbggra orggre? V’ir urneq gung gur Nezl vf “vzcebivat” gur cebprff.
Have a great week!
NaCly dog on June 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM
I’ve read the Sullivan blurb about five times now, and a clear picture of what the hell he’s saying has yet to form.
Here’s the closest I can get to it: We and the Iranian state want to see in this strong expressions that rile our respective factions up.
Standard lib narrative where agitation is the end itself. It avoids the burden of considering an opinion based on reaction–no we’re just playing our pre-recorded tape.
See conservatives want to see Iran as something mostly, or wholly other. But libs see the commonalities with a country where the Comrade-in-chief thinks that just as many people would likely be beaten if Mousavi had been elected–Because if this were a potential difference–you’d almost expect that it’s significant to prefer the president who does not beat opposing voters to the president that does.
Obama, by the paralysis of inconsistent political liberalism, is forced to imply that Iran has a fundamentally locked-down power structure–so that viable candidates will not differ from each other that much, or in that the citizens of Iran cannot vote themselves a president who would not beat down opposing voters. But not flesh this out fully enough that the suspicions of the right become obvious from these characterizations.
No, as a liberal he has to embody great sympathy for suffering and yet make room for his subsequent inaction. Obama will both play up that the country needs no reform from without however oppressive it demonstrates itself to be within.
My feeling is that Khomeini knows that all the world will do is talk at them, and if they can weather that storm of a bad opinion, that the nicey-nices will rush to embrace them just to show how nice they are. This real politic is what “empowers” those with political will.
Axeman on June 20, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Sullivan sees a zionist/Jew behind everything he dislikes. He just uses the code word “neocon” instead of saying Jew. That has always been his deal.
georgealbert on June 20, 2009 at 4:29 AM
I’m seeing this theme over and over: “Don’t fight back, that only makes them stronger.”
It’s obnoxious enough in a fantasy setting, but a dangerous idea in the real world.
Count to 10 on June 20, 2009 at 8:12 AM
It is a bit disturbing when a prominent Neocon like Daniel Pipes posts an article titled “Rooting for Ahmadinejad.”
M_Laveau on June 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM
I do not, personally, know anyone who claims to be a neo-con. I do know, personally, a lot of folks who wonder who or what a neo-con is. Have never heard a definitive answer. I can only draw the conclusion that there is no such thing as a neo-con.
jeanie on June 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Here’s the Wikipedia definition:
M_Laveau on June 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM
For the most part, neocon=strawman.
iurockhead on June 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM
M_Laveau on June 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Thanks–appreciate your trying to help. Cannot say that Wiki has made it any clearer though. In fact, I think this defintion, if it qualifies as one, just muddies the waters more.
jeanie on June 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Can’t say that I disagree.
M_Laveau on June 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM
It’s Twitter so it must be true!
Mr. Joe on June 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM
HondaV65, or should I say, Chief, you’re dead wrong about this. You should feel stupid about your earlier comments.
blink on June 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I thought Neo-Cons were supposed to come in and disrupt Islamic Regimes… Uh… I guess I can’t keep up. I wish Sullivan would just give us his honest opinion… Those Palin loving Zionists clearly want to torture all of the gays that are in Iran…
Upstater85 on June 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I don’t see how he’s dead wrong about this…
Upstater85 on June 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I’d disagree. We have gay commenters here, commenters, and even posters at other blogs. Most gay conservatives (real conservatives, not faux conservatives like Andy) seem to have their heads on straight, just like the rest of us.
BTW, keep up the great work you’re doing, and thanks!
bikermailman on June 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I figured out years ago, that for most of these nitwits, ‘neocon’ = teh Jooooooossss…most of them couldn’t define a neocon if you held a gun to their heads.
bikermailman on June 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Eh… have you read some of them (on HA?) They are 1 issue people most of the time.
Upstater85 on June 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Southern Gent seems pretty sane to me…he’s the only one that pops into mind at the moment.
bikermailman on June 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Gabe Mallor(?) writes at AoS, has some fantastic legal views (is in law school).
bikermailman on June 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I’m not sure if he is gay… I heard something, but I thought that was a joke… JetBoy comes to mind…
Upstater85 on June 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Upstater85, you need to read some of the stupid stuff he’s written the last two days.
This retired Chief isn’t very smart. His bold predictions were all wrong.
blink on June 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Perhaps he is. I don’t see a lot of his comments. I will say though that I don’t trust the Iranians. I don’t think the US can get involved with force. That’s not to say there can’t be some sort of intervention or what have you.
Upstater85 on June 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM
The enemy within..it’s always the enemy within…
Knott Buyinit on June 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM