Friday, June 24, 2005
Andrew Sullivan is hyperventilating about our friend Michelle Malkin
FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS. Here at InstaPunk we were pretty shocked to read Andrew Sullivan's little blog today about Karl Rove's remarks. Here's the part that raised our collective eyebrows:
It seems to me that Karl Rove's sickening generalization about "liberals" in the war on terror is revealing in ways not obviously apparent. Sure, there were some on the hard left who really did jump to blame America for the evil perpetrated by the monsters of 9/11. I took names at the time. But all "liberals"? The New Republic? Joe Lieberman? Hitch? Paul Berman? The Washington Post editorial page? Tom Friedman? Almost every Democrat in the Congress who endorsed the war in Afghanistan? You expect that kind of moronic extremism from a Michelle Malkin, but from the most influential figure in an administration leading a country in wartime?
Moronic extremism. From a Michelle Malkin. Ironically, Sullivan's piece was featured at RealClearPolitics alongside Michelle Malkin's blog entry on the same subject, as if the RCP boys are trying to start an all-out catfight.
Obviously, Ms. Malkin doesn't need any help from us to deal with a Sullivan, but we still thought that his was a performance worthy of comment. Why is he so itchy about this subject that he feels compelled to Sunday punch La Malkin?
I suspect that it's the stress of being bedfellows (no pun intended) with the considerable army of liberals who do merit Karl Rove's pejorative assessment, which was, for any who may have missed the screaming headlines in the MSM:
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."
Andrew Sullivan lists those he considers exceptions to the mindset Rove specifically ascribed to Moveon.org, all of whom supported the Afghanistan invasion, but he is in denial about what has happened since. The initial near-unanimity about retaliating against the enemy no longer exists. Among liberals that first response can now be seen as a kind of hysterical moment in which they experienced a patriotism they generally loathe and from which they have been recovering at various rates ever since.
I'm sure a glib political switch-hitter like an Andrew Sullivan (no pun intended) would like to believe that his own crisis of conscience with respect to the Iraq War is mirrored by the understood targets of Rove's wrath -- Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, the Hollywood traitor elite, Dick Durbin, John Dingel, Charles Rangel, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Aaron Brown, Paul Krugman, and the editorial staffs of the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and, yes, the Washington Post. But it isn't so. Rove was figuratively if not literally correct. Here's why.
The real foreign policy agreement that binds most liberals together -- from far left to moderate -- is their conviction that the use of military power against Islamofascism will only make more Islamofascists and that our safety depends, as Nancy Pelosi said just a few days ago, "on our reputation and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world." Their worldview cannot comprehend a circumstance in which it is better policy to hunt down and kill our enemies than to try to win them over by understanding them better. This is not a smart remark. It's simply a description that fits all the rhetoric and behaviors we have seen since liberals began backing away from every component of the War on Terror that resembled war.
They claim at conventions and on the floor of Congress that they are resolved to defend America from a threat they refuse to identify with its sponsoring religion, but they oppose each and every serious measure required to conduct that defense. They oppose wars that don't come with a perfect five-year plan for all contingencies. They oppose tough talk to the craven and corrupt saboteurs of American foreign policy like France and Germany. They oppose treating terrorists as terrorists and wish to extend to them all the legal protections of the country those terrorists are sworn to destroy. What does all this add up to? They want the War on Terror to go away, as if it were only the fevered dream of George W. Bush and (of course) Karl Rove.
These days, conservatives don't much care where liberals stood on the invasion of Afghanistan. We always knew that this was going to be a long haul, and most of us always expected that liberal support would evaporate through a series of semi-plausible objections derived from their uber-tolerant understanding of those who despise them, which is virtually infinite except in the case of American conservatives, for whom they have no tolerance at all.
But Andrew Sullivan has the nerve to get pissed off when Karl Rove allows himself a mild understatement about the behavior of a political party and ideology that have merely proclaimed their patriotism while committing act after act that is indistinguishable in any way from what a committed traitor would do to sabotage the prospects for success of his country.
Is it really moronic extremism to get tired of patronizing patriots who feel no shame about libeling their country's president and the military while legitimizing every tiny propaganda gambit essayed by the killers who are stalking us across the world? I don't think so. And I'd love to see the labyrinthine argument by which Mr. Sullivan would try to wriggle out from under this essential truth.
Of course, a divided soul like an Andrew Sullivan probably isn't as upset by Karl Rove as he is by all the impediments to his moronically jocular (since we can't risk the connotations of words like 'gay') social agenda. Which means he's insane. That's permitted in this country, and it's quite admired in some circles. But it does eliminate one's qualifications to pass judgment on Michelle Malkin's intelligence.
We just thought this was a good picture.
Just to be clear -- we weren't trying to separate the combatants or prevent a battle royal. We just wanted to put our two cents in before the fireworks get going in earnest.
But a word to the wise: chill out, Andrew. If it comes to a cage match, we're betting on Michelle Malkin.