From Andrew Sullivan, with whom I usually agree:
Al Qaeda has been seriously weakened since 9/11, thanks almost entirely to those countries, especially the U.S., that chose to confront it. But it seems clear to me that the trend in Europe is now either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it. It is hard to view the results in Spain as anything but a choice between Bush and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda won.
Empasis mine. Which European government(s), pray tell, are in “active alliance” with terror?
If your goal is to continue to fracture our international alliances such that nothing can be accomplished in the War on Terror, by all means, continue using rhetoric such as this.
(Of course, since we’re omnipotent God-people, we don’t really need allies, do we? Or the compromises they bring?)
As Katherine also pointed out, the sky is falling all over Hawk County on this one…not sure if they feel it spells d-e-f-e-a-t for Bush too or if they simply only like Democracy when it results in a confirmation of their personal views. Zapatero has been quoted as saying “fighting terrorism would be his first priority.” So it’s not a lack of focus that has the Sullivan’s et al. all upset…it’s the lack of confidence in Bush’s approach.
As Katherine also pointed out, the sky is falling all over Hawk County on this one…
I’m OK with sky is falling claims, or claims that Spain has given into terrorism. There’s some plausible support for either proposition. What I’m against is alleging that our allies are in cahoots with the terrorists.
I’m OK with sky is falling claims, or claims that Spain has given into terrorism.
I’m willing to take Zapatero at his word that he’ll make fighting terrorism his number one priority, so I disagree. I don’t like that he’s now saying he’ll pull Spanish troops out of Iraq (not that, in and of itself, that would be contradictory to his pledge, mind you), but I’ve never felt the invasion of Iraq was doing much, if any, harm to al Qaeda anyway.
Andrew has been known to get caught up in the heat of the moment. It’s one reason I don’t read him as much as I used to. That, and the gay issues just glaze the eyeballs.
For Andy’s sake, someone should hack into his serve and install some code that institutes a mandatory 5-minute delay while he reads his post and, hopefully, thinks again before posting idiocy such as this.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with Andrew and everyone else who reacted like that. They are a disgrace to blogging — and it’s really hard to disgrace a medium where the dominant form is 16-year-old girls complaining about their homework.
von, if you haven’t followed SullyWatch for a time, I recommend you do so. I admire Andy’s prose, but I often find his reasoning to be highly distorted by partisanship or emotion. I suspect his ability to write elegant sentences frequently misleads him into invective.
Von wrote:
He probably means the governments of France and Germany who did not merely oppose the liberation of Iraq, but actively
threatened and/or bribed the government of Turkey in order to deny coalition forces a northern front. It was one thing for them to sit on the sidelines during this phase of the War (e.g. Canada) but to actively work at sabotaging our efforts was truly despicable.
Unless Sullivan wasn’t referring to “European governments” in his piece (that seems to be Von’s inference) but instead was talking about the tendency of many Europeans to act as apologists for some terrorist groups or provide funding for some of their front groups.
Edward wrote:
You mean like when the people decide through their democratically elected representatives what the definition of civil marriage will and will not be? I seem to recall that quite a few proponents of “gay marriage” were perfectly willing to chuck aside both “Democracy” and the rule of law when it did not fit their “personal views.”
On the other hand there is nothing about merely criticizing the decisions people make through the democratic process (as opposed to suggesting an undemocratic response such as the losing party staying in power regardless of the election or a mayor ignoring law) which can legitimately qualify as “not liking Democracy.”
>Andrew has been known to get caught up in the heat of the moment.
And what is every other right winger’s excuse for doing it? Nearly all of them in the blogosphere and pundit world have said comments identical to Sullivan’s.
“And what is every other right winger’s excuse for doing it? Nearly all of them in the blogosphere and pundit world have said comments identical to Sullivan’s.”
Not I. The trend may be toward appeasement, tough to tell so far. But I have never accused European governments of “active alliance”. In fact my whole criticism of Europe centers around their much more passive denial of important foreign policy problems.
I seem to recall that quite a few proponents of “gay marriage” were perfectly willing to chuck aside both “Democracy” and the rule of law when it did not fit their “personal views.”
It’s curious when right-wingers can say that a court established under a Constitution is undemocratic and that the court’s decision contradicts “the rule of law”, and be taken seriously.
In Pennsylvania, a guy named Toomey is challenging Arlen Specter for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. A Democrat named Hoeffel is also running for the seat. According to the Sully/Tacitus logic, Republicans should vote for Specter and against Toomey in the primary because if Toomey wins, the Democrats’ objective of unseating Specter will have succeeded.
I wrote:
To which Mithras replied:
Burn strawman, burn.
Excuse me, Winston, I missed the mayor reference, but you’re still wrong. The mayor disagreed with the Attorney General’s interpetation of the law, which was within the mayor’s authority to do. When a court ordered him to stop, he obeyed. By definition, the rule of law prevailed. What was your point again?
Mithras wrote:
Funny how that happens when you don’t actually read what others have written.
I assume that you have some legal precedent to back up the contention that the mayor of a city in California is not obligated to abide by California State laws and can alter and issue a State marriage license so that it no longer conforms with the statutory criteria for that license? Does this apply to State driver’s licenses? State medical and bar licenses as well?
Obviously my point is that the mayor (a) defied the law which was written by the democratically-elected officials of his State and (b) altered a State license so that it no longer conformed to the statutory criteria for receiving that license. That he stopped doing so when to continue would have potentially resulted in some legal consequences in no way mitigates his earlier unlawful activity.
I assume that you have some legal precedent to back up the contention that the mayor of a city in California is not obligated to abide by California State laws….
The mayor’s argument was that the California constitutional provision on non-discrimination required him to issue licenses regardless of sexual orientation. He believed he was following California law, not defying it.
The whole “believed he was following California law, not defying it” line is of course nonsense and only serves to avoid having to the question I asked (which was in regard to Mithras’ contention that the mayor had the authority to take the action he did) so I’ll ask it again:
What is legal precedent to back up the contention that the mayor of a city in California is not obligated to abide by California State laws and can alter and issue a State marriage license so that it no longer conforms with the statutory criteria for that license? Does this apply to State driver’s licenses, State medical, and bar licenses as well?
What is legal precedent to back up the contention that the mayor of a city in California is not obligated to abide by California State laws …?
I think the source of your confusion is that you think constitutional provisions are somehow the special province of courts to enforce. In fact, executive and legislative branch government officials make decisions about the constitutionality of laws and actions all the time without the benefit of court opinions on point. If you think about it, we could hardly operate any other way. If I were a legislator, and I was confronted with a bill that proposed a novel way of restricting speech, of course I can take legitimate action to stop that bill from being passed on First Amendment grounds. Otherwise, government actors could evade responsibility for the constitutional effects of their actions, simply because there wasn’t a court decison on point.
The mayor had a range of options, all perfectly lawful and within his authority. He could have continued to discriminate against same-sex couples until and unless a court decision said otherwise. He could have sought an advisory opinion from the Attorney General. Or he could have done as he did.
To take a contrasting example, it was within the authority of erstwhile Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to plunk a two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of his courthouse. He was fine up until he defied a court order to remove it.
In both instances, the people involved clearly felt strongly about the moral and political necessity of their actions. Just because their legal judgment turned out (or, could turn out, in the mayor’s case) to be wrong does not mean their initial actions were illegitimate.
Weren’t we talking about the elections in Spain, Thorley?
Or is it the fault of the gay community in the US that Aznar lost his bid for re-election?
Somewhat off-topic – Kos says that Kerry never bragged about “foreign leaders”.
Thorley said: “Von wrote:
Which European government(s), pray tell, are in “active alliance” with terror?
He probably means the governments of France and Germany”
Ah, so people who are assisting in Afghanistan and try to get Osama bin Laden are in active allience with the terrorists? Because they tried to *prevent* the war in Iraq that had nothing to do with AQ?
Fascinating.
I was going to let Thorley‘s comment regarding France and Germany go without response. But, if a response should be had, I’ll adopt dutchmarbel’s.
You got stronger points to make, Mr. Winston (like on the Kerry and the deficit).
JKC — yachtzee!!
(Thorley protesteth too much when it comes to gay men and women. And marriage? Don’t get him started.)
Pretty good rant from Pandagon on the subject.
In response to Von question as to whom Andrew Sullivan was referring to when he said that some Europeans were in “active alliance” with terror I answered (1):
To which dutchmarbel replied:
I am saying that when you actively set out to sabotage our efforts in Iraq by bribing and threatening one of our allies into reneging on an agreement to provide us with a northern front then you have gone from mere neutrality (e.g. Canada) to actively supporting the other side (you’re kidding yourself if you think that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism). Also it was not clear in Sullivan’s post that he was referring to European governments specifically (that seems to be something Von inferred) which leaves open the possibility that he was (also or instead) referring to the tendency of some Europeans to act as apologists for many terrorist groups or actually provide funding for their front groups.
Von, rather than addressing the issues I raised himself, chipped in with:
Just so we’re all clear then, it’s your position then that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or Al-Qaeda? Or that France and Germany didn’t try to sabotage our efforts on the northern front of Iraq? Or that their dishonorable actions with Turkey are somehow mitigated by their actions in Afghanistan? Or that some Europeans (again Sullivan never specified European governments in his remarks) have been acting as apologists for terror groups or providing funding to their front organizations?
TW
(1) Please note that no one has actually challenged any of the substance of what I have wrote or its implications. The response instead has been to try to change the subject when I actually answered the question Von raised.
Thorley, I’m sorry, but some arguments are not worth having. This is one of them.
Or — taking my one warning under the posting rules — fucking ‘a, Thorley, Sullivan uses the term “terror” to refer to the perpetrators of the attacks in Spain, and similar terroist attacks. He’s not making a larger point about Iraq, or whether (and how) it’s connected to the war on terror.
That’s the context for my criticism. If your point is that France and Germany are “in active alliance” with the folks who killed 200+ Spaniards last Thursday, please provide your evidence. (As should be self-evident, arguments relating to the thesis that invading Iraq will drain the swamp of terrorists and is therefore connected to the war on terror — whatever merit such an thesis may have — is not evidence of an “active alliance” with the terrorists themselves.)
Since I’m warning myself under the posting rules, I may as well use the word “fuck” again. There. It’s out of my system.
von
Von wrote:
That’s a rather curious position to now be taking when you start out by asking a question to which someone responded.
I would agree that Sullivan ought to expound on his remarks to clarify what he meant by them. However it is pretty clear from reading his subsequent comments that he does consider Iraq to be part of the War on Islamofascism and the motivation of the attack to get Spain to withdraw from Iraq. Besides which, I doubt that any serious person is going to argue that Spain wasn’t targeted because she was a member of the Coalition in Iraq at least judging by the response of the previous government in trying to downplay Al-Qaeda’s role, the opposition party in trying to link this to Spain’s involvement in Iraq, and the Al-Qaeda tape saying that this was in part because of Spain’s involvement in Iraq.
Which is a strawman argument since Sullivan said no such thing nor would that seem an accurate or fair interpretation of his remarks.
Trying to preserve a regime which was a known harborer and sponsor of terrorists by attempting to sabotage the military campaign to remove said regime is evidence of an “active alliance” with terror. So would funding groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad:
I wonder if that was part of what Andrew Sullivan was thinking of when he wrote that the trend in Europe was “either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it.”