Comments on: Playing the “Osama Card”

By: Ticked off vet

Ticked off vet — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:07:15 +0000

I thought this “5th column” nonsense was a joke till I read it. This is just to let Sullivan know that this particular resident of the “red zone” does NOT support any of his fear-mongering. I reserve the right to dissent freely. I am NOT in agreement with the man who refers to the government as “my” government. I am NOT ready for war. If Sullivan, like his chickenhawk idol, is ready for war then let him put his body where his mouth is: ENLIST in the army! Otherwise it’s just talk, talk, talk, and no more than the neo-con rantings of an administration that consists of “men” who purport to lead a war but who have 0 active duty time.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:15:53 +0000

The fifth-coloumn is on the right. Fascists who want to undermine our constitution, revoke the bill-of-rights, and establish a unitary executive responsive to corporations and the churchs. “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country…”

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:37:38 +0000

Incidentally, to get an idea of what an American fifth column might look like, you could do worse than studying the isolationists of the upper midwest just before WW II. Dave Niewert might have something in his archives, if he does, it probably has some details.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:31:21 +0000

Point of information- Ford paid more because people wouldn’t work for him otherwise. Ford drove the workers so hard that his entire workforce would turn over twice in one year. His secret police were renowned for invading the worker’s lives at home, and eventually Ford hired an actual Nazi (a real one, from Germany) as the chief of his secret police. Nothing subtle about Ford.

By: Teaflax

Teaflax — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:04:41 +0000

I had no idea Sullivan was Dutch.

I mean, it’s the only language I’m aware of where “u” is a word.

By: Cris

Cris — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:01:27 +0000

Thanks for the context, Jimmmm; it’s very interesting to see the exchange in full.

I have to agree, I find Andrew’s straw man bizarre. Who said anything about preferring Osama to Bush? But the kicker for me is the next sentence:

i’ve seen a couple of articles lately confessing exactly that.

Way to cite unnamed sources, Sullivan. “A couple of articles” by whom? Care to provide us with some links?

By: Jimmmm

Jimmmm — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:24:48 +0000

Greetings all:

I’m the James who wrote Mr Sullivan. Here’s how the exchange went down (my email addy redacted):

From [james]
To: andrewmsullivan@aol.com

Subject Line: Would that Sullivan Could Take a Mulligan

Andrew:

http://thismodernworld.com/2677

Man, am I glad that I didn’t say that.

I’m also glad I didn’t say (as you did approx 15 mos ago), “When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be.”

Andrew’s reply:
u deny that there are some on the far left who would prefer osama to bush?
i’ve seen a couple of articles lately confessing exactly that.
andrew

My re-reply:

Yeh, right, Andrew, there are *hordes* of us who prefer Osama to Bush. (rolls eyes, looks at watch…) Besides, where in my original posting to you did I even make this a popularity contest pitting the extremist scion of a huge Saudi-related fortune…and Osama bin Laden (ba-dump-bum!)

Seriously, Andrew, must “u” cite the very, very rarified exception as the rule? You called us coastal types fifth columnists. Period. Maybe that was just the 9/11 talkin’, but, judging from the location of your home/s, the offices of your big media employers, and by your very well-documented fondness for many things [Los] Angeleno, I’d say you’re one of those elite coastals, too.

And what, exactly, did you *not* know about Bush in 2000 that factored into your decision not to back him in ’04? That he mocked a condemned killer on TV, that he mismanaged a series of businesses (possibly escaping from one such debacle by engaging in a bit of insider trading)?

I really like your site, and consider your writings part of my balanced diet of opinion. But come on, Andrew, you’re REALLY reaching here.

[name redacted]
Long-time reader, first time caller.

Point to all this is, it took me all of, like, five minutes to bitch-slap Andrew. And I’m not just frontin’ here. What this exchange did (for me at least) is raise a serious question, especially in light of the James Frey/Smoking Gun debacle: If it took me five minutes to puncture Mr Sullivan’s oft-stated contention about the state of national security merely by thinking off the top of my head, just how much of what Andrew’s written on the subject over the past fifteen years has been utter and complete bullshit? I was sincere in saying that I’ve been a long-time reader of Mr Sullivan’s, but now I’m beginning to believe that he is just a huge, fucking fraud.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:52:39 +0000

It seems to me that there is an active campaign to get it into the public consciousness that there is no line between legitimate dissent and "fifth column" activity.

I would really like to be wrong about this, the idea that there are people who would relish a one-party state. But I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that there are folks working towards getting rid of any opposition to their ideas.

By: ChrisV82

ChrisV82 — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:34:55 +0000

That last comment was just a swipe at Sullivan; obviously we’re talking about something else. So, yeah, I’ve got a fifth column for ya right here, buddy.

By: ChrisV82

ChrisV82 — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:33:54 +0000

The only good thing about the failure to legalize gay marriage is that Andrew Sullivan can’t marry, and it’s not because of people like us.