- Antiwar.com Blog - http://antiwar.com/blog -

Look Who’s Talking!

Posted By Justin Raimondo On January 31, 2005 @ 7:46 pm In Uncategorized | Comments Disabled

Good grief! When I read the following blog entry [1] by Andrew Sullivan, I practically fell off my chair:

“THE NYT’S SILENCE: In the blogosphere, we are often called to account for previous statements; or asked to concede that we were wrong about something or other. It happens. We’re all human and our judgment is never going to be 100 percent correct. But in the MSM, such accountability is rare. It seems to me, for example, that when the Iraq elections are a huge success and you have recently editorialized in favor of their postponement, you might owe your readers an acount of what you misjudged, or at least an acknowledgment that you have been proven wrong. So check the NYT editorial today. No such acknowledgment. The difference between the blogosphere and the MSM: more accountability.”

When oh when is Sullivan going to retract the following comments [2] made in the wake of the anthrax scare?:

“At this point, it seems to me that a refusal to extend the war to Iraq is not even an option. We have to extend it to Iraq. It is by far the most likely source of this weapon; it is clearly willing to use such weapons in the future; and no war against terrorism of this kind can be won without dealing decisively with the Iraqi threat. We no longer have any choice in the matter. Slowly, incrementally, a Rubicon has been crossed. The terrorists have launched a biological weapon against the United States. They have therefore made biological warfare thinkable and thus repeatable. We once had a doctrine that such a Rubicon would be answered with a nuclear response. We backed down on that threat in the Gulf War but Saddam didn’t dare use biological weapons then. Someone has dared to use them now. Our response must be as grave as this new threat. I know that this means that this conflict is deepening and widening beyond its initial phony stage. But what choice do we have? Inaction in the face of biological warfare is an invitation for more in a world where that is now thinkable. Appropriate response will no doubt inflame an already inflamed region, as people seek solace through the usual ideological fire. Either way the war will grow and I feel nothing but dread in my heart. But we didn’t seek this conflict. It has sought us. If we do not wage war now, we may have to wage an even bloodier war in the very near future. These are bleak choices, but what else do we have?”

~ Andrew Sullivan, 10/17/01

Sullivan clearly wanted us to nuke Iraq in “retaliation” for the anthrax attacks — except there was not one iota of evidence that Iraq was behind it. There still isn’t. And Andy — the silence is deafening.


Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://antiwar.com/blog

URL to article: http://antiwar.com/blog/2005/01/31/look-whos-talking/

URLs in this post:

[1] blog entry: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_30_dish_archive.html#110719435523696963

[2] the following comments: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_10_14_dish_archive.html#6398404

Copyright © 2009 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.