Andrew Sullivan Goes Over the Line in a Delusional Blog Post
He argues that Pakistan would most likely tip “into even more outright hostility to any cooperation with the West.” One might say that it could hardly in fact get worse. The country’s military or intelligence agencies harbored Bin Laden, broke with NATO, and shut down American supply routes in protest of its actions. He argues as well that jihad “would boom” if Israel strikes Iran, galvanizing Islamist parties and preventing a rapprochement between our country and Muslim nations.
He says Iran would also use car bombs throughout the world, might block the Strait of Hormuz, and smuggle “high-powered explosives across its border into Afghanistan, where they could be planted along roadways…to kill and maim American and NATO troops.” Of course, Iran is already threatening to block the Strait, and was already targeting and killing our troops in Iraq and is now doing this in Afghanistan , which is awash with Iranian bombs.
Sullivan writes that “global recruitment for Jihad would boom as well -- reversing all the gains of the last three years.” What gains is he talking about? The Arab Spring and rise of Islamist parties to power? The shift of once progressive Turkey into a neo-Islamist state? Did the tides of jihad come to an end three years ago, the moment Obama took step into the executive office, only to threaten to come to life again because Israel is trying to defend itself?
His bottom line: Benjamin Netanyahu controls the Republican Party, “has core members of the US Congress siding openly with him against the US president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman,” and is getting evangelical voters to mobilize against Obama, whom they see as the “anti-Christ,” all in the cause of seeking a “global war” which is "exactly what Netanyahu wants,” and the Republicans need to defeat “Obama’s foreign policy advantage.”
Sullivan’s presence at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast, I would think, are becoming somewhat of an embarrassment to its other editors and staff, at least I would hope so. Sullivan wonders why people have accused him of anti-Semitism, and then he writes stuff like this column which provide ample evidence for that charge. There was a time when distinguished columnists would not be allowed to produce such drivel and have it published, at least not since the 1940s and the columns of Westbrook Pegler.
Decades ago, William F. Buckley Jr. isolated Pat Buchanan from the conservative movement, as he did the John Birch Society earlier, for saying similar things to what Sullivan now writes. What liberal or “progressive” will now demand the isolation of Andrew Sullivan and demand that Tina Brown look at what he writes more closely, as Buckley did to those in his own circle? I anxiously wait to see if anyone steps to the plate.