Saturday, June 20, 2009

Andrew Sullivan: Anti-Semitic Neocon Derangement

From William Jacobson's must-read post yesterday, "NeoCon Derangement Syndrome On Steroids":
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.
Also, as Michael Goldfarb indicates, Sullivan's blogging is demonstrably anti-Semitic, "Sullivan and Khamenei Agree: Jews Control the Media," and "Hiatt and Goldberg on Sullivan." (The latter post includes an update from Jeffrey Goldberg writing last year, "Andrew and the Jew-Baiters.")



Andrew's latest post this afternoon, speaking of President Obama's most recent statement, also makes mention of the "evil" neocons, "Obama's Response":
Did you notice how many times he invoked the word "justice" in his message? That's the word that will resonate most deeply with the Iranian resistance. What a relief to have someone with this degree of restraint and prudence and empathy - refusing to be baited by Khamenei or the neocons, and yet taking an eloquent stand, as we all do, in defense of freedom and non-violence [emphasis added].
So, "Khamenei" and "the neocons" together in one breath.

God, this man is nasty, as I've demonstrated many times.

Ace of Spades HQ adds this:

It's jawdropping that Sullivan would claim that "neocons" and "AIPAC" would want the revolution to fail. One American clearly seeks the failure of the revolution, but that's his own fantasy-boyfriend Barack Obama. And Sullivan can't say that his would-be boyfriend is in the wrong, so he puts Barack Obama's words into the mouths of his enemies - "neocons" (by which he means Jews) and AIPAC (by which he means Jews).

Did I say one American opposed the revolution? My bad. Two. The man Sullivan passionately supported on the Republican side of the campaign - Jew-hatin' race-baitin' conspiracy-addled Ron Paul - also does.

So that's two of Andi's crushbook favorites who are flacking for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. But who gets blamed? The Jews, naturally.
If you have any doubt that Sullivan is an anti-semite, I invite you once again to ponder how risible the claim is that Jews, of all people, are actually buddies with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. And carrying their water.

Or neocons, for that matter, who aren't Jews (though Sullivan uses them as rough synonyms).

Iran has been fighting a proxy war against Israel since 1979 and its highest officers routinely threaten to wipe it off the map with a first-strike nuclear holocaust.

Any supporter of Israel -- Jewish or not -- would dearly wish Ahmadinejad to crumble into dust.

This is the most madcap of old-timey Jewish conspiracy ranting, where not only are Jews to be blamed for making trouble with foreign powers to further their own suspiciously-Yiddish interests, they're also, incoherently, alleged to be making secret pacts with those same foreign powers to further their dangerously-Hebraic agendas.

This is Nazi-type stuff, claiming Jews are both on both sides of every conflict and in fact the puppet-masters puppeteering both sides for their own nefarious, gefilte- stinking ends.
There's more in an update, "Take Two: Let Me Explain What Sullivan Is Saying." Ace explains the dementia of "Andi The Anti-Semite Sullivan":

... he's suffering from cognitive dissonance: He's a passionate supporter of both Obama and the Iranian Revolution, and his addled, demented brain is having trouble reconciling the fact that the Love of His Life actually seems to be the one flacking for Ahmadinejad, while neocon-Jews he despises actually seem to be against Ahmadinejad.

It also could be due to self-love, his unrelenting, insatiable narcissism. He wants himself to be the most passionate supporter of the Iranian uprising in America, and so when Charles Krauthammer appears to be an even more passionate supporter, saying crazy things like "Barack Obama should support the uprising," Sullivan needs some way to explain that Krauthammer is actually not what he seems.

Krauthammer seems to be more forward-leaning than Sullivan? Easily explained: He's actually supporting Ahmadinejad, deliberately, trying to trick guileless Gentiles into taking steps that will undermine the protesters. An agent provocateur.

Andrew Sullivan's narcissistic, demented worldview will not admit of someone being "more right" than he is. He must come up with some mechanism by which the only two people who have it exactly right are Andrew Sullivan and his dreamlover Barack Hussein Obama.
As readers can see, this is just one more reason why I don't like Andrew Sullivan. But the lefties will no doubt be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Andi The Anti-Semite Sullivan. Also, recall my essay from last year, "Kos and Andrew: Merchants of Hate" (and by lefties, we can safely include Conor Friederdorf in that category as well).

Image Credit: Darleen Click, "Excitable Andy: ‘Watch out for the Jooooos!’"


Old Rebel said...

This is high entertainment for me.

At the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, Sullivan was totally on board the Neocon train o' liberation for all, with equality for homosexuals as the ostensible ultimate goal for Americans volunteering to fight and die in the Middle East. Sullivan was a true believer in the Neocon agitprop about a global democratic revolution.

And now he sees what a lie it all was. Too funny!

Donald Douglas said...

Old Rebel: And no doubt you're down with his anti-Semitism as well ...

Anonymous said...

THe truth, if you care, is that many neocons were rooting for Ahmadinejad to win the elections - the theory being that the worse the gov't in Iran, the easier it would be to maintain the fearmongering / warmongering policy alternatives.
How could you strike at the nuke facilities, or have Israel do it, if there was a liberal reformer in office who shunned the Achmadinejad rhetoric?

THe charges of antisemitism against Sullivan are ludicrous and transparent. You seem not to realize that the reflexive accusation of antisemitism against anyone who deviates from hard-right Likudism is a very old shtick by now. It has lost all of its force and only makes the person wielding the accusation look like a lazy and unprincipled thinker.

The neocon approach to situations like this has been a proven disaster. Instead of taking the situation seriously, thinking through, strategically, how best for America to respond, the neocons simply play their only card - bellicosity for its own sake. Or for the sake of making the ranter feel more of a man.

Obama is earning enormous credit for his wise handling of this situation. At any point, a cheap, politically popular word from him embracing the green movement, would have doomed it to failure.

As in all countries, there is a vast, rather non-political silent majority in Iran. Their instincts are for order, but occasionally their frustrations can come together with a movement led by activists, and something revolutionary can happen. Ultimately they are decisive. If the vast silent majority swings behind the green movement, it will triumph. If they remain on the sidelines or are hostile, the movement will fail.
These people might, emphasize might, go the mat in defense of democracy, or for their freedom. They ABSOLUTELY will not go to the mat for a revolution led by puppets of America.

Of course, there is no way that the greens are such puppets, but the gov't is already trying to make them out as such, and any evidence that Obama gives them - any words of embrace he offers, will be used, relentlessly to drive home the message to the vast Iranian middle. You may have legitimate beefs with us, but you cant take the side of foreigners against our government. Such an argument, if backed with evidence, WILL WORK for the gov't.

That you and the neocons can't seem to understand this is yet another example of why y'all are so appropriately referred to as the "stupid party".

Mongoose said...

THe truth, if you care, is that many neocons were rooting for Ahmadinejad to win the elections - the theory being that the worse the gov't in Iran, the easier it would be to maintain the fearmongering / warmongering policy alternatives.
How could you strike at the nuke facilities, or have Israel do it, if there was a liberal reformer in office who shunned the Achmadinejad rhetoric?

And you have proof for that?

Thought not.

Stupid Party? It was that idiot Carter that got us (and the Iranians) into this mess in the first place. Now that was "Meddling". Typical leftist, projecting his won sides vilness on others.

JSF said...


If you want more context from a Jew who has seen Andrew Sullivan go down to the dark Side (because he hates Bush....hmmmm...)

Read (and link) to this post. Atlas Shrugs also linked to it:

Rich Casebolt said...

Old Rebel, the actions of the people Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and now Iran ... not to mention earlier, in Eastern Europe ... make y'all look more like a liar than us neocons.

And anon ... you apparently know NOTHING about the motivations of neoconservatives. Given that we see the establishment of rights-respecting governance as an effective way to remove the threat rogue regimes pose to free people, we would WELCOME true reform in Iran ... and see it as one less potential war in our future.

BTW, neocons took away the threat of Saddam Hussein that the Mad Mullahs used for years to beat back dissent ... so you can thank them in part for helping to facilitate the current events in Iran. So much for your talk of neocon "failure".

What you call "belligerence", we call CONFIDENCE ... validated by history.

Ronald Reagan had that confidence ... and facilitated the liberation of hundreds of millions, REAL reductions in nuclear-arms stockpiles, and the establishment of conditions for sustainable peace.

The potential for Eastern Bloc reformers to be called American "puppets" was there, like in Iran, but Mr. Reagan chose to speak out ... backing his words with concrete actions that proved to the enemies of life and liberty that They. Would. Not. Prevail.

As a result, the cause of the reformers was strengthened by his words and actions, and they prevailed instead.

George W. Bush had that confidence ... and facilitated the liberation of tens of millions, prevented Iraq from becoming a high-tech Afghanistan 2.0, and established the conditions that will lead to sustainable peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, as long as their people continue to stand in their own defense.

Those who initially stood up to al Quada and the other thugs who tried to re-establish oppression in Iraq after Saddam were also labeled American "puppets", and often paid with their lives -- just like it is happening right now in Iran -- but Mr. Bush chose to speak out in support of these Iraqi patriots ... backing his words with concrete actions -- in particular, a persistence in continuing to stand with the patriots and engage the enemies when others like you were screaming "cut and run!" -- that proved to the enemies of life and liberty that They. Would. Not. Prevail.

As a result, more and more Iraqis had the CONFIDENCE to stand up and defend life and liberty themselves, in the face of the threat the enemy was making to such so-called "American puppets" ... and the Anbar Awakening and its derivatives resulted, leading to an Iraq that is now far more respectful of one's life and liberty than it was under Saddam.

Mr. Obama, and others like him in our past, don't/didn't have the confidence in the fundamental principles that this nation was built upon ... those "self-evident truths" in our founding documents that apply to ALL men, not just Americans ... and as a result, we don't even get words to defend life and liberty, much less concrete actions that prove to the Mad Mullahs that They. Will. Not. Prevail.

You say he is wise for doing this ... but his INACTION, in word and deed, may also leave the Mad Mullahs with the capability to quash this revolution, because they will continue to think they will prevail ... in the perception that no one will try to stop them, no matter how brutal they get. His INACTION will reinforce their CONFIDENCE in oppression, instead ...

... and an opportunity to establish rights-respecting governance, that would by its own nature REMOVE the threat of a nuclear Iran, without a single negotiation, will be lost, and the status quo of nuclear belligerence will be further entrenched.

How is that advancing the cause of peace, anon?

Is your Messiah not at least as wise as Bonzo's co-star and Chimpy McHalliburton ... does he lack the capability to repeat their success with respect to protecting life and liberty?