Writing at Commentary’s Contentions site, Omri Ceren has a terrific take-down of Andrew Sullivan’s latest almost illiterate ramblings in which he comes to the defense of the Goldstone Report, about which Ceren shows he knows next to nothing. As he writes, “Andrew Sullivan has to know that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t really know anything about the Goldstone Report. He has to know that he’s cribbing from shallow anti-Israel propaganda outlets, since he’s the one who’s doing the cribbing.”
If you doubt this, read Sullivan’s post for yourself. And here is Ceren’s conclusion about Sullivan: “Now those partisans have moved on to pretending that Goldstone couldn’t have known that the refutations would forthcoming, since the Israelis didn’t cooperate during the investigation. The new pretense is different than the ‘no substantive answers’ line, but what lacks in unblinking shamelessness Sullivan and his class are trying to make up for with grating condescension.”
What Ceren does not mention is an important sideline about Sullivan. A few days ago, Tina Brown announced that she has bought him out and obviously paid him handsomely to move to The Daily Beast website for his blog, and to Newsweek where he will be a new columnist. But take a look at what she writes about him, and about his so-called expertise: “Scrolling down Andrew’s blog helps to give orientation in the world, to get the smartest possible fix on the news at any given moment. A rarity, he is willing to admit mistakes and change positions (sometimes radically) in the face of new evidence.” (my emphasis)
In fact, as we have just seen, Sullivan changes positions without regard to the facts, and when even Judge Goldstone saw fit to acknowledge the deficiencies of his original Report, Sullivan seeks to rescue it with faulty logic and by ignoring actual facts that Ceren lays out. Score another one for Tina Brown’s continuing desire to hire people whose views she obviously agrees with, however far from the truth they are, and however they seek to spin their arguments when they don’t have facts behind them.