Friday, February 03, 2006
"The line is a straight one"
Islamists in Gaza threaten the lives of European civilians if their governments don't apologize for supporting freedom of the press. The courageous editor of France-Soir has been fired. It would be hard to illustrate the core issue of our time more vividly: freedom versus religious extremism. From the threat to Salman Rushdie through 9/11 to the murderous thuggery of Zarqawi in Iraq, the line is a straight one. And it must not be appeased.
Precisely.
5 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Fri Feb 03, 09:41:00 AM:
Though hilarious from a wishy washy, carping appeaser...
The moment you personalize things for the ultra-self-centered, interest group obsessed, gay and lesbian journalist crowd, the moment they become "warlike."
I guess this cartoon issue is the equivalent of the plane flying through his own window...
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Feb 03, 10:11:00 AM:
In fairness, Sullivan is not an appeaser. He supported the war in Iraq, and is a huge hawk on Islamists. He has been consistent in this. However, he has been a huge critic of American policy and practices toward prisoners, to the extent that it motivated him to support John Kerry the last time around. This was, in my judgement, very muddled, but I'm not sure it is fair to call it appeasement.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Feb 03, 10:51:00 AM:
Sorry - loving up Kerry is appeasement. But that's just me talkin'.
And I've found Sullivan to wax and wane on his support for Iraq. Mostly I think he's annoying.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Fri Feb 03, 11:32:00 AM:
I used to read him daily but have found him increasingly unreadable. For a brief window of time he made a lot of sense on national security, but apparently this is of secondary importance to him, his diatribes about the defense of marriage act and abu graihb becoming his focus. Once he committed himself to the defeat of George Bush, he allowed this to influence all his writings, including those on Iraq and the war on terror. His abrupt reversals have been well chronicled by Taranto.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Feb 03, 05:04:00 PM:
What Charlottesvillian said, in spades.
It's a shame too because he's a first-class writer. It just seems to be the logic skills that aren't really there, but on the other hand this has been the case with a lot of the 9/11 hawks. One gets the feeling their hawkishness was more based on emotion than anything else, so maybe they are just reverting to type or maybe this is just more of the same.
My husband was in the durned Pentagon when it was hit, and I can't say I got emotional about it. That didn't make me, in and of itself, more pro-war: I still needed to be convinced, mostly because I hadn't been paying attention. I'd say it was more of an event that focused my mind, and once that happened I proceeded to do some research and what I found out appalled me.
It's not really surprising that decisions made in the heat of the moment are not always long-lasting ones.
