While I applaud Andrew Sullivan for his occasional journalism (like exploding that phony Rolling Stone “bug chasers” story), more and more he’s coming off like a ranting nitwit and a complete hypocrite. A few weeks back he blasted the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force for taking an anti-war position. He’s assuredly entitled to disagree with NGLTF’s position (he does) but he specifically said that they shouldn’t have taken any position because “war is not a gay issue.”
Now, a mere two months later, Sullivan is trying to drum up support among gay people for the war by telling horror stories about gay people living in Muslim-controlled territory.
Many many problems with this. First, he’s (I’ll be charitable here) mischaracterizing people opposed to the war as “[siding] with the dictators who oppress [gays].” Wait, forget being charitable. This isn’t a simple mischaracterization. It’s a flat-out filthy lie, and one that he and too many other right-wingers have been telling for too long. He’s supposed to be a bright boy (despite his penchant in engaging in unsafe sex and making excuses for it) so he really ought to know that there’s a difference between opposing a war and supporting a dictator. But in his world there is no “oppose war.” There is support war or support, “actively or passively,” Saddam Hussein’s regime.
What’s telling about Sullivan’s column is that he doesn’t specifically limit it to the current war in Iraq. He doesn’t name the “oppressive Mideast dictatorship” at all, so his unqualified support of war would equally apply to the Bushies’ next adventure in the region. Syria, anyone? Or maybe Palestine (which he does cite as oppressive but not a dictatorship)?
Second, given that his comments are coming less than a week after Rick Santorum’s anti-gay comments and the White House’s support for him, it is a little bit sick for Sullivan to imply that concern for the oppression of Iraqi gays was in any way the motive behind this war. He’s deluding himself if he thinks that anyone in the Bush administration had the oppression of gay people in Iraq even wander across their mind while plotting out war strategy.
Finally, if war is not a gay issue, Sullivan is dead wrong to use his position as a gay journalist writing in a gay magazine and invoking gay oppression to justify the war. I guess it’s only wrong to play the gay card if you disagree with his self-important delusional stance.
Sullivan apparently has a reputation as a heavy drinker even by the standards of the Washington press corps. Instead of the options in the thread title, I’d vote for “nasty drunk”.
Wow, Elvis. You honestly don’t care even a bit of an iota of a whit whether the shit that you spread has even a modicum of truth to it, do you? You are a disgusting, vile, evil human being and ignorance personified. I’m ashamed to share a phylum with you, let alone a species.
Yep. He was diagnosed in 1993. He was also famously caught placing a personal ad looking for barebackers; another columnist made an issue of it to highlight what he felt was Sullivan’s hypocrisy on sexual issues.
ArchiveGuy has somthing of a point – I’m not a huge fan of bringing it up when it’s not relevant. But it does have the distinction of being actually, verifiably true and is arguably relevant when discussing his stance on matters sexual.
We debated this point in GD. Since then, we have found out that anti-war leader and Member of Parliament George Galloway really was supporting Saddam, for money. We have learned that France was supporting Saddam, by providing secret information. At the very least, without the war, Saddam would have remained in power.
We debated this point in GD. Since then, we have found out that anti-war leader and Member of Parliament George Galloway really was supporting Saddam, for money. We have learned that France was supporting Saddam, by providing secret information. At the very least, without the war, Saddam would have remained in power.
So that’s one person out of millions, one nation out of dozens. It’s unreasonable at best and a lie at worst to claim that the motive of the majority or even a significant minority of those opposed to the war were supporting Hussein either actively or passively.
The question strikes me as irrelevant.
He implied it, which is exactly what I said.
According to Sullivan, “war is not a gay issue.” Unless he’s the one who wants to talk about it and use homosexuality as the hook on which to hang support for the war. Either it’s not a gay issue in which case he has no business writing the second article, or it is a gay issue in which case he owes NGLTF an apology for the first article.
You forget, in December’s world everything reduces to one of two questions: (1) What is the person/group/concept under discussion’s stance vis-a-vis the policies of President George W. Bush, and (2) What is the person/group/concept under discussion’s stance vis-a-vis the State of Israel and its present government (which are assumed to be synonymous)?
It makes for a very neat and clearcut world: everything from the use of the filioque in the Nicene creed to the state of the Borneo ecology can be judged by reference to these two simple criteria.
I find Andrew, as a gay conservative, to often be interesting reading, though more often he seems to be engaged in a circuitous justification of a stance he seems to feel forced into by the nature of his sexuality and his politics.
The OP said, “He [Sullivan] doesn’t name the “oppressive Mideast dictatorship” at all…maybe Palestine (which he does cite as oppressive but not a dictatorship)” So, a description of the PA’s atrocious treatment of gays was germane to Otto’s point.
One can make a good case that a gay organization shouldn’t take a stand at all between Israel and the PA. There are plenty of issues to work on that specifically involve gay themes. But if they do decide to get involved, it seems odd for them to favor the side that tortures gays.
I’m incredibly tired of hearing this blatantly false dichotomy. It presupposes that there are only two sides to this conflict: Either one must support a rogue American invasion of a sovereign nation, or one must support the tyrannical regime of that sovereign nation. That is demonstrably false. Sadaam’s removal from power was a good thing for Iraq; however, I would have preferred that it come from a concerted effort from the United Nations.
As a gay man who emphatically does not support this war, this way, I find Mr Sullivan’s characterization insulting. I also think that being gay has less than nothing to do with being either pro- or anti-war, and I don’t see why he feels the need to speak out for the gay community on an issue that does not concern us as a gay community any more than increasing aid to Venezuela would.
Sorry that this is not directly on point, but I grow weary of december’s drive-by posts that completely miss the point of the thread.
Sullivan specifically attacked the NGLTF. Can you find me a cite on the NGLTF web site indicating that the NGLTF has taken a position in support of the Palestinian Authority? Can you find me a cite anywhere that indicates NGLTF favors torturing gay people?
Sullivan’s criticism of NGLTF was based on its joining a coalition known as “Win Without War.” Here are all of the statements NGLTF has released to date in reference to this coalition, whose founding members include:
The Win Without War mission statement is
Nowhere do I see support, explicit or implicit, for Saddam Hussein or the palestinian Authority. I do not know the position on the PA of every founding member of Win Without War, nor are those positions relevant to a criticism of NGLTF’s decision to oppose war with Iraq.
Oddly, Sullivan has not to my knowledge broadsided the Log Cabin Republicans (who support the war). Another example of how war is a gay issue as long as you’re on his side.
I’m glad that Andrew has had a turnabout on the issue. If he’s now for supporting the overthrow of a regime that’s oppressive to homosexuals, that means he’ll be campaigning against the GOP in the next election.
