Sullivan and Sources


Over at The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan has been debating the United Nations's Goldstone report on war crimes committed in Gaza (whose critics, including the State Department, say it was unfairly hostile to Israel) and the fallout from this New York Times opinion piece, in which a founder of Human Rights Watch denounces the group for having "written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."

In the Times editorial, Robert L. Bernstein points out that "Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza 'did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.'" Noah Pollak also pointed to Kemp's testimony, which was made on behalf of the group UN Watch (though it wasn't first time he has defended the tactics of the IDF). In response to these two invocations of Kemp, Sullivan responds with an attack on the group that hosted him:

For a little background on this neutral observer, here's the Wikipedia entry on UN Watch, the hard neocon group Kemp is representing.

To this, UN Watch's Hillel Neuer responded:

The slur is also nothing shy of incoherent. If we are to believe Andrew Sullivan, UN Watch would become the first "hard neocon" group in history to be chaired by a former Carter Administration official who actively campaigned for Barack Obama's election to the presidency, to lobby for gay rights, featuring as a leading spokesman the father of Canada's gay marriage bill, and to actively welcome the U.S. decision to join the UN Human Rights Council.

Incidentally, a list of recent campaign donations from UN Watch chair Alfred Moses seems to confirm Neuer's point. When Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein suggested that Sullivan, Matt Yglesias, and other HRW's defenders read a critical report of the organization issued by a group called NGO Monitor, Sullivan scurried back to Wikipedia:

And who exactly is NGO Monitor, said authority on such matters? Here's Wikipedia. You guessed it. Do they really think we can't see past vague acronyms or market-tested names?

I'm not sure how closely Sullivan followed Operation Cast Lead or how familiar he is with HRW's activities in the Middle East—which perhaps explains his curious habit of attacking not the substance of the arguments presented by groups like UN Watch and NGO Monitor but the not-so-secret-fact they are representing a single side of the issue—and I'm not interested in debating the details of a subject with which I am only broadly familiar. But there is something deeply lazy and, contrary to Sullivan's neutral pose, deeply partisan about this style of argument.

Sullivan wants to brush aside the criticisms of Col. Kemp, who possesses an impressive military record after serving for three decades in the British Army, based on who invited him to speak  at the UN Human Rights Council. And he wants to suggest that because NGO Monitor is—"you guessed it"—a pro-Israel organization, that one can dismiss their criticism out of hand. If this is the standard we are using, why, just 50 minutes after criticizing Bernstein and NGO Monitor, did Sullivan link positively to a Media Matters video attacking Fox News? There is plenty of convincing material included in that 5 minute clip of Beck and Hannity hyperventilating about American communism, but isn't Media Matters a pro-Obama outfit funded by George Soros? Can't Sullivan see past the "market-tested" name to find the partisan attack dog?

Look, if the tobacco industry funds a health study, it should be received with skepticism, of course, and other scientists should look over its methodology with an extra level of suspicion (Ron Bailey has written on the issue of industry-funded research here). But does it mean that its findings, eo ipso, aren't true? I suppose when you are producing 40-50 blog posts a day, it is far easier to shout "neocon" than to engage in honest debate.

NEXT: Twitter Posts Not "As In Depth As You Might Like"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I suppose when you are producing 40-50 blog posts a day, it is far easier to shout "neocon" than to engage in honest debate.

    The injections don't help with the rage, you know.

    1. Good morning Reason readers!

  2. Should we support:
    Israel or Palestine?
    Republicans or Democrats?
    or none of the above?

    1. I motion that we follow the Libertarian tradition of a non-interventionist foreign policy. This means staying out of the entire debate. Who agrees?

      1. I don't. I'd like to see other countries following more libertarian policies as well. We just need to be careful about who we ally with and what compromises we are willing to make. The libertarian cost-benefit analysis is not going to be the same as the Democratic or Republican cost-benefit analysis in any foreign policy exchange.

        Democrats are happy to support Chavez, as long as he keeps selling us oil. Republicans are happy to support the Saudis, as long as they keep selling us oil.

        But I'd argue a libertarian foreign policy would be more focused on better human rights AND freer markets in both places. With oil prices left to the market. You know ... we wouldn't think it's the proper role of the government to manipulate the geopolitical climate to keep them low.

        1. But I'd argue a libertarian foreign policy would be more focused on better human rights AND freer markets

          But, but, then wouldn't we have to practice what we preached? I'm not sure we're up to it.

          We just need to be careful about who we ally with and what compromises we are willing to make.

          The libertarian pipe dream of avoiding all foreign entanglements is just that. Real politik is real. Compromises are an ultimate necessity.

          Then the going will get muddy. Why is Britain such a great ally today, given the way they treat their citizens? Why were the Soviets our ally in WWII? Because it was smart, in that it ultimately saved American lives? Because it was actually necessary to win the war?

          The fog of reality settles in, and libertarians gripe and moan that their Uncommitted Utopian Heaven has been violated.

          The utter denial of Machiavellian truths has always been a flaw in libertarian philosophy. Though to be fair, nobody else's philosophy is willing to face up to it either. Except maybe the Russians, whose political order never contained much beyond Machiavellian themes.

          If you don't acknowledge it, then it's just an imaginary monster that lives under the bed.

          1. Why were the Soviets our ally in WWII?

            They weren't. We were theirs.

            1. off topic here...


              @|10.24.09 @ 6:36AM|#

              Why were the Soviets our ally in WWII?

              They weren't. We were theirs.

              That may be an oversimplification. When Stalin wanted stuff from the US&UK;, we usually dithered, wanted discussions, then dodged the issue. He actually kept his word SOME of the time. Like sharing Berlin. And other things. I am not defending Stalin. I just read 'Koba the Dread' and have never loathed any human being greater. But the more I have read about Russian and Allied relations during WWII, the more I realize that the West had double-standards in regards to the Soviet Union (with good reason in some cases). In the end, Russia is the country that fought the 'big war' against the Germans. Our contribution to the liberation of Europe was in large part only possible because of Russia. I think its fair to say that we always got more out of them than they got out of us in the 'Alliance'.

              Richard Overy has a good book out called, 'Russia's War' that is a great companion to Amis' thing. Also, you can't beat the old 'World at War' series. Stephen Ambrose on, 'reckoning'

          2. "Except maybe the Russians, whose political order never contained much beyond Machiavellian themes."

            I get the impression that you haven't read Machiavelli.

            1. I get the impression your sarcasm meter is way out of calibration.

          3. Ya know, I pretty much agree with everything you said here.

      2. Uh, doesn't agreeing to stay out of the debate mean you're not staying out of the debate?

        1. I am interested in Joshua Corning's opinion of Andrew Sullivan. Josh, what would you describe him as?

            1. Why do I feel like I'm watching "Rocky Horror"? "Frank, what's your favorite color?!!"

      3. Andrew Sullivan is a pile of shit...i don't care if the take down is about potato chips, if it takes down that toilet I want in.

      4. I totally agree. I mean who are we to condemn injustices around the world?

    2. "Should we support:
      Israel or Palestine?"

      Hmmm, this is a choice only if you are a dumb motherfucker. Should we support a liberal democracy, or a terror state run, into the ground, by a thugocracy? Should we support a state that is under constant threat of attack from well-financed mass-murdering terrorist organizations or should we support a state that uses force only to defend itself against said terrorists? Should we support a state that launches rockets indiscriminately and then hides amongst civilians because it knows useful idiots in the West will whine about "disproportionate use of force" or should we support a state that does everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties, as evidenced by the fact it has not wiped "Palestine" off the fucking map even though it could in the blink of an eye, and would frankly be justified in doing so?

      Seriously, some of the comments, and commenters, here are brain dead.

      And please don't give me the crap about a traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Not choosing sides between a democracy and bunch of murdering terrorists is not just cowardice, it is moral bankruptcy.

      1. Yea, but they are jews.

        That must make a difference, no?


  3. I don't even know what a 'neocon' is anymore.

    1. A neocon would say that, wouldn't they, Paul?

      1. I don't know, would they?

        1. Which of the following would make a 'neocon':

          1. Voted for George W. Bush, 2x
          2. Supports the Iraq War (and is against the pullout)
          3. Supports the Afghan War (and is for the expansion)
          4. Supports Bush enacted bailouts of the 'too big to fail' firms.
          5. Likes 'czars'.

          I'm sure I'll think of a few. I just need help with this one.

          1. 5. Likes "czars" so long as the GOP is running them.
            6. Supports Israel no matter what happened.

            1. Supports Israel no matter what? As opposed to the times when one should have stood with Hamas and Hezbollah?

              1. Of which there are none, of course.

          2. Supposing I fit 3 out of 5? (I fit the former 3 and not the latter 2.) Does that make me a neocon?

            Suppose I supported Bush, but not all the people he supported? (When Sandra Day O'Connor retired, I thought he was way too nice to her in his eulogy for her time as a jurist on the Supreme Court. But then again, I suppose it's not very mature or diplomatic to go belting out a "Ding dong! The bitch is gone!" at a public speech.)

            I thought he was way too nice to a lot of people, in fact. I'd have liked to read a headline saying "W to Auto Companies: Drop Dead" or "No Child Left Behind: Funding Bill for Department of Education Vetoed" with maybe a "Women and Minorities Hardest Hit" subheading in the traitor leftist rag running the hit piece.

            In short, I wish he'd given the leftard traitors currently crowing over their takeover of our once-great nation more to squawk about than he did. Sending the Islamonazis in Afghanistan and Iraq to Hell was a nice start, but he should have done more to some of America's domestic enemies.

    2. I don't think anyone who uses the word 'neocon' knows what a neocon is anymore.

      1. The people who use it as a vindictive mean Jewish.

        From an exchange that John is having with another John, cross blog, is looks like the whole debate is marksmanship. The Hamas lovers are upset at the IDF shooting and hitting their targets while Hamas can't hit shit. The complaint? "Hamas didn't hit anything important and Israel blew up homes!"

        Er, if the palestinians were not shooting FROM homes, schools and hospitals the IDF would not be blowing them up.

        1. Yeah, I usually replace the word "neocon" (or any variant thereof) with the word "j00" to mock the anti-semites using it.

    3. Apparently there are now "hard" and "soft" neocons.

    4. I was told it meant 'fascist'.

  4. Hasn't the "well Wikipedia said so" argument been proved to be invalid?

    1. Yep. That shit that Sullivan quoted? I just put it in there.

      1. Sullivan quoted Wiki? I didn't read that far before dismissing 'him'.

  5. Sullivan is part of the "it's okay when Obama does it" crowd, and has been since before the election.

    I believe the term he coined was "Obama-con" to describe turncoat partisans like himself.

    1. Sullivan is part of the "it's okay when Obama does it" crowd, and has been since before the election.

      OK, Adam, are we talking about the same Andrew sullivan who wrote on Oct 5: "If Obama wants to support gay equality, he knows what to do. [...] So spare us the schmoozing and the sweet-talking and do it. Until then, Mr president, why don't you have a nice steaming cup of shut-the-fuck-up?"

      I believe the term he coined was "Obama-con" to describe turncoat partisans like himself.

      Or alternately he might be an actual independent thinker and have made a difficult choice that many Americans made.

      1. Sullivan is one of the natural leaders of the "it's okay when Obama does it" crowd. He does criticize Obama for the lack of progress on gay issues, especially since the severe restrictions on HIV+ foreigners in the US directly affect him. But this issue hasn't stopped him from being deeply in love with Obama. He abandoned any pretense of favoring small government policies or even simple objectivity if it's bad for Obama. His infatuation with Obama runs much deeper than Sullivan's infatuation with George W. Bush in 2001-3.

        1. Besides, by Sullivan's own logic, we should ignore anything he writes aout gay-rights issues since he has a clear position in favor of one side of the debate.

          1. So, uh, are you sure you've thought out the logical consequences of that position...or is this just troll straw?

            1. No, it's a reducto ad absurdum. Andrew Sullivan argued that UN Watch and NGO Monitor should be ignored out of hand because they're clearly on Israel's side of the Isreal-Palestinian dispute. The same logic would mean we should ignore his writing on the gay-rights issue out of hand because he's clearly on the LGBT community's side.

      2. No. Sullivan doesn't think about things so much as feels about them, and then constructs a sort minimally logical intellectual frame work to justify his emotions. This is how he can remain a gay Catholic. He feels like a Catholic, so the fact that he's upholding as the One True Church a Church that despises him and thinks he will go to hell doesn't really mandate any sort of logically coherent theological position. He just jibbers some platitudes and keeps doing what his heart tells him to do.

        The main question you need to ask yourself in any situation to anticipate Sully's opinion on any given topic: What position will best allow Sully to blaze in the self-righteous defense of all that is good and right? That will be his position.

        Basically he'll sell Obama out too once Obama has done enough shit to make Sully feel comfortable writing mopey pieces about how his grand hopes have been dashed. He will dash from new hero to new hero forever, and cast each aside as their flaws are exposed and the dirt of realpolitick soils them.

        That said, I like his blog. He's just... a drama king.

        1. Rich, give us some snark.

        2. OK. How's this?

          1. How about turn it up a notch?

      3. Holy shit, he wrote two fucking sentences criticizing Obama concerning, surprise, gay marriage. Man, talk about a long track record of opposing the current administration. Such fucking courage of convictions.

  6. I believe the term he coined was "Obama-con" to describe turncoat partisans like himself.

    He may want to reconsider using that term. It can easily be understood.

    1. Too bad Comic-con was already taken.

  7. It's not that Kemp isn't a respected military tactician. It's that one man's single-page IDF testimonial doesn't negate a 575 page fact-finding mission with hundreds of detailed references. Kemp was not part of the invasion of Lebanon; he is at best simply repeating what he was told.

    And BTW, is the new standard for Just War that after dropping leaflets and making phone calls (saying what? "Immediately leave your home and most belongings and flee the city, or we will kill you"), you can bomb to your heart's desire with no moral qualm?

    1. Yeah, this is part of the usual neocon "find somebody in a uniform to shut up criticism" wonkery. Maybe Kemp has the goods on what the report found, maybe he doesn't, but Israel has done plenty to deserve condemnation. Uncritical US support of that country is making matters worse in that region.

      1. Um, how do you feel about the US bases in Saudi Arabia? They are rather expensive.

      2. jtuf, tell us all how clueless you are about the US pullout from Saudi Arabia several years ago.

      3. "Uncritical US support of that country is making matters worse in that region."

        Uncritical. Christ, can't you stop spouting bullshit talking points long enough to analyze this administration's actions towards Israel? They have been anything but uncritical. As for supporting Israel, you are right. Maybe we should support Hamas and Hezbollah every now and then, just to change things up, keep people on their toes. After all, they just blow up pizza parlors and buses and launch thousands of missiles indiscriminately into Israel and then use civilians as shields because they know there will be useful idiot douchebags like you who take some bogus fucking report commissioned by a bunch of the world's worst serial human-rights abusers seriously.

    2. Why should Israel be condemned for finally attempting to stop the incessant rocket attacks launched against them from Gaza? Why are they in the wrong? Over 12,000 mortars and missiles in 2008 alone before they finally did something about it. Hamas = Terrorist.

      1. Well during the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel no rockets were fired by Hamas. A handful were fired by Islamic Jihad. Israel broke the ceasefire on Novemeber 4th and Hamas then started to fire rockets again. Israel saw the most rockets fired at it during their little operation. Ceasefire has been reached yet again and still no rockets are being fired. So what's the better strategy? Bombing the crap out of Gaza which will make Hamas retaliate with rockets, or work on a long term ceasefire?

        1. How do you negotiate a ceasefire between two parties when one party's number one goal, in fact their entire reason for existence, is the destruction of the other party?

          1. You shoot the Jews who will not willing march into the Med.

            1. Or as the old joke goes, a Palestinian moderate is someone who still wants to drive the Jews into the sea, but only up to their waists.

        2. Well during the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel no rockets were fired by Hamas. A handful were fired by Islamic Jihad.

          But you maintain that Israel broke the ceasfire? Oh, Hamas didn't break it, their buddies who don't count broke it and Israel needs to sit ant take it?

          Why don't you walk yourself into the sea instead of trying to force others to.

          1. This brings up a good point. A government has a positive responsiblity to protect the innocent from violence. It does not always succeed, but it must at least make a good faith effort. A century ago, we had lynchings in the US, because local authorities would turn a blind eye towards violence against people they did not like. Today, we have rockets launched from Gaza at Israel, because Hamas turns a blind eye towards violence against Jews. Hamas has an obligation to crack down on the groups who launch the rockets into Israel.

            1. If you believe Hamas "turned a blind eye" and didn't actively encourage it, I have a bridge I think you might be interested in.

              1. I think the same goes for the lynchings. It is my understanding is that there were lots of badges under those robes.

      2. Calpico will prove what a Hamas buttboy since MNG below.

    3. Yes it is. The old standard was to just bomb without any warning. That's why Israel did more than any other country in the history of warfare to protect civilians. The warnings they gave were more than other countries ever did in similar situations.

    4. Anyone who takes the findings of a fact-finding mission overseen by a body made up of the worst human-rights abusers in the world should I put idiot. Anyone who thinks mentioning a fact-finding report from the most anti-semitic body in the world is some sort of trump card in a debate is a fucking clown.

  8. Def. Neolib - someone who wants to project American power to impose his personal beliefs on other nations.

    Def. Neocon - someone who dares to disagree with a neolib.

    1. To be boringly accurate, a 'neoliberal' is a pejorative term that Marxists use to describe quasi-free-market policies projected by Washington.

      Meanwhile, a 'neoconservative' was originally (more-or-less) a former-Trotskyist enthusiast for American geopolitical hegemony.

      So a neocon and a neolib are actually both technically right-wing. Neocon is mroe related to military/political policy. Neolib is more related to economic policy.

      1. So when Obama presses other countries to adopt his prefered policies, he's being a neocon?

          1. Seriously, that may never stop being funny.

  9. Has Sullivan been ever good at any issue? I support gay marriage, so I find his arguments convincing. Plus, he has the in-depth knowledge of the subject. But was he ever convincing to somebody who had not already shared his opinion?

  10. I motion that we follow the Libertarian tradition of a non-interventionist foreign policy. This means staying out of the entire debate. Who agrees?

    Well I do, but that makes for far less drama on the thread.

  11. All I know is, at any other time in history, a country with a relatively powerful military (like Israel) that was suffering from incessant attacks by a weaker foe would have just gone in and wiped them out decades ago and no one would have batted a eye. But in the twentieth century we decide that its preferable to allow a never-ending low level war in which innocents on both sides will go on dying, pretty much forever.

    1. Yeah. Because here in the West we're so smart now. Nobody has ever been as smart as we are.

      Nobody in the Middle East except Israel has managed to generate anything but a third world shit hole to live in. But no matter, the Israelis are no good by definition if you listen to the Left.

      "World opinion" in the MSM means "Western European opinion". The Western Europeans have their opinions and the American Liberal Left amounts to little more than being their lap dogs. It's Western Europe that most needs a nice steaming cup of shut-the-f***-up.

      I for one am glad that Israel is frequently willing to ignore Western European stupidity and defend their own interests.

    2. Like I mentioned earlier, but saying it a different way, the left complains about good marksmanship, unless they are winning.

    3. Israel should shoot more often.

      And use bigger guns.

      If the world is going to bitch anyway, might as well give them a reason.

      1. Praise Jehovah and pass the ammunition.

      2. It seems to me that doing something just because someone tells you not to do it is just as stupid as not doing something just because someone tells you not to do it.

        In both cases you're taking actions because of how you want other people to feel about you rather than because they're the best response to the situation.

        1. Which has what to do with anything?

  12. Speak up!

  13. I motion that we follow the Libertarian tradition of a non-interventionist foreign policy. This means staying out of the entire debate. Who agrees?

    I agree, from a political stand point. The US government should not be involved, should not be taking sides -- and should also ignore Western European opinion far more than it does.

    But that doesn't mean I can't, don't, or shouldn't have preferences or favorites of my own in the matter. I'm unabashedly pro-Israeli, because they're the only ones at the Middle East table that demonstrate any semblance of being civilized.

    It's just like the culture thread a few days back. The libertarian movement should not itself be promoting culture. Individuals should have their own cultural preferences, they just shouldn't be planks in the party platform.

    1. Of course, part of me likes the idea of staying out of fights out on the playground.

      The other part of me knows it'll never happen that way.

  14. it is far easier to shout "neocon" than to engage in honest debate.

    Shouting "hard neocon" is way hotter.

  15. This all begs the truly pressing question: would you rather live with Andrew Sullivan, or in Gaza?

    1. Can we live with Sully in Gaza?

      oh, no. they 'd stone him to death there!

    2. That certainly does beg the question. Most of us would rather be dead.

  16. Andrew Sullivan, a nun, and Lonewacko walk into a bar.

    1. Bartender: "Is this a joke?"

    2. Oh what fruit shall this pregnant moment bear?

    3. They arrive several moments apart, sit at separate tables, and never interact. Why they were mentioned together is beyond me.

  17. Like Little Green Footballs attacking an autistic blogger:

  18. Sullivan has been a Far Leftist nut for years.

    1. That's giving him far to much credits. Leftists have spend considerable time deciding what they believe and stick to a consistent (albeit wrong) system of beliefs.

      Sullivan just flits from one man-crush to the next and reorganizes everything he says to match the new object of affection.

      1. If by 'consistent system of beliefs', you mean 'whatever policy *feels* good at the moment', then yes.

  19. Maybe somebody can help me out here. How does it come to be that Western Europe and the American Left are anti-Israel? I've never understood the logic that leads to this position.

    Europe has more problems with terrorists of Middle Eastern decent than the US does. You'd think they had a strong motivation to be pro-Israeli.

    Some perverted manifestation of guilt, because the disaster we now call The Middle East was basically a post-WWI European creation (read: stupid and everybody knows it)?

    Or the fact that as usual, the US one-upped the Europeans by creating Israel after WWII? After even the Brits had figured out that was a really bad idea and dropped it?

    Or is it just another expression of the fact that the Left has enshrined anything and everything that is anti-white man? Because they've figured it out, and (with the notable exception of Karl Marx) the world white men created is no good?

    Because Jews have so often succeeded so well in the capitalist world that white men created?

    1. I believe the USSR and the Western left were largely pro-Israel for decades, partly for anti-British/anti-colonialist reasons. This began to shift after '67, and especially into the '70s, as Israel came to be seen more as a US ally and less of an underdog, and with the rise of OPEC. Now the Palestinian cause is generally strongly supported by the Western and American left, even among Jewish leftists, which I think is bizarre.

      Also note the oddity that the pro-Arab/Muslim left tend to be loud critics of any friendliness between the US and the Saudis.

    2. Originally Western Europe was very pro Israel and the US anti-Israel. It was French made Mirage fighters that saved Israel in the 1967 war not American F4s. The US under Eisenhower and Kennedy both looked at Israel as a nuisance state that messed up our relations with Arabs.

      A couple things changed. First, Israel went capitalist (it was originally very socialist with the kibitzes and all that). Second, the European left began to look at Arabs as a traditionally oppressed group. This combined with Arab states embracing Pan arab socialism and aligning themselves with the Soviets sealed the love affair between and the European left and the Arabs.

      Finally, Europeans are just anti-Semites. They can't seem to help themselves. Once the holocaust was a few decades old, the guilt began to wear off and Europeans have gone back to their favorite pastime of Jew hating. It is just what Europeans do.

      Sullivan is of course a European, a leftist, and a pretty twisted Catholic. Given those things, not surprisingly he is a horrible anti-Semite who will pretty much say or argue anything against Israel and Jews no matter how incoherent and vile. Sullivan is a sort of 21st Century Father Coughlin. Instead of being a priest, he is a blogger. And instead of being at least ostensibly celibate, he is an active homosexual. But everything else is there, the twisted morality, the hatred of his enemies, the warped socialism.

      1. Make that Kubutzes. Must preview.

        1. John: The destroyer of traditions.

          1. LOL. Actually a kabitz is a Israeli coffee how where people get together and talk about mothers and coffee and such.

            1. You are making me knish my teeth.

            2. I was talking about your mention of the mysterious preview bug that regulars here are never supposed to touch.

              What does Woody Allen think about it?

                1. I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.

              1. I can't speak for Woody Allen; but I imagine he's more concerned with the mysterious postview bug.

      2. Sullivan: Socialist, European, hates Jews. Sounds like Hitler.

      3. Thanks for the info everyone. Maybe it sorta kinda makes a little more sense now.

      4. John
        you seem to live in a fantasy world.
        Europeans hate Jews so much that Israeli sporting teams play in european competitions? That an israeli transexual won the eurovision song contest?

  20. Huh, I hadn't thought about that.

    Now it makes even less sense.

    1. Who is Andrew Sullivan?

      1. Oh, no need to worry yourself, he's a waste of time anyway. Find something interesting to talk about.

        Isn't that what this blog thing is all about?

        1. I thought it was all about narcissism.

  21. I saw Goldstone on The News Hour last night. Hearing him speak, it became apparent that this person is just a war crimes whore. He NEEDS to find war crimes in order to remain relevant. It was also obvious that he suffers from internalized anti-Semitism.

    PS If someone could tell me how to post italics I won't have to use uppercase for emphasis. Thanks!

    1. Replace square with angle brackets:



    2. less-than sign lower case i greater than sign is the basic tag. you add a forward slash between the less than sign and the i in the closing tag at the end of whatever you are italixing.

    3. Definition- Anti-Semite = Someone a Jew does not like.

      1. Definition-Someone who preemptively whines about being smeared as an Anti-Semite= Someone who does not like Jews but wants to play victim.

    4. Wow. Goldstone ANOTHER Jewish anti-semite. Amazing how common they are after they report out facts not favorable to Israel.

      1. I think Hitchens was treated much worse for his, not quite the same, infraction.

  22. Originally Western Europe was very pro Israel and the US anti-Israel. It was French made Mirage fighters that saved Israel in the 1967 war not American F4s. The US under Eisenhower and Kennedy both looked at Israel as a nuisance state that messed up our relations with Arabs.

    This is often forgotten. After Egypt got their asses handed to them in the Seven Day War, Nasser made up some bullshit about how the British and Americans actually helped Israel by bombing Egyptian military targets - to assuage national pride after a bunch of outnumbered Jews kicked their butts through the Sinai to the Suez.

    While LBJ had originally wanted to be neutral in the conflict, this, combined with Nasser's overtures to the Soviets, pushed American foreign policy to a pro-Israeli stance.

    1. The Israelis won because they started the war with a surprise attack

      1. And they won the others how?

        1. Well, they won the 1956 Suez War because they started the war with a surprise attack, pursuant to their secret deal with the Brits and Frogs.

          1. Wasn't that the only one where Israel attacked first? I was trying to string the Nazi into that.

          2. Well, they won the 1956 Suez War because they started the war with a surprise attack, pursuant to their secret deal with the Brits and Frogs.

            While all of her allies were massing forces for attack with a different Brit/Frog deal.

  23. italics

    1. Eureka!!!

      1. Epi,

        Come on down and go all Nazi for us.


    Where is UnderDipshit? I want to see him call people Rohmites for not supporting the Israeli side in an idiotic conflict that for some reason fixates the world.

    1. Warty, do you have a solution?

    2. Suicide bombings tend todo that. Firing thousands of rockets in into undefended neighborhoods does too. So does using schools and mosques as military positions.

  25. You know what would fix all this? A peace conference.

    1. Epi will be along in his black uniform and shiny black jack boots in a moment to make fun of Warty's solution.

      1. sage will copy my idea of having Obama give a major speech on this topic.

    2. No. Obama should give a major speech on the topic.

      1. That didn't take long. Idea thief!

        1. But it's a good idea, right? Obama's words are like magic.

          1. Yes, there is even a song about that. Safe for work unless you work with socialists.

        2. I hear that's a lucrative business.

          1. Yea, if I had a million dollars for every idea stolen from me . . .

  26. A peace conference with PRIZES. Nobel Peace prizes. Bob Barker could give them out. But people would have to compete for them...I'm thinking Plinko or Shell Game.

    I think our president deserves one, don't you?

  27. Our president deserves a banana sticker.

    1. I predict than John T's friend, the other John T, will come in and ask us to pay attention to the terrorists who twist facts.

      1. sage will run through this thread and totally mess up the Pro L. protest begun yesterday-or-so.

    2. Warty, that was the weirdest frickin' thing I've seen all day.

  28. You make some excellent points here about the inherent veracity of reports or observations from people with excellent credentials. My only concern is that most of the media ignores some excellent arab speakers, writers and authors of other wise accepted publications far too often in favor of the pro-Israel supporters with their own 'twist' to the facts.

  29. What the hell has been going on in my absence? What the hell have you people been messing with? My clock just turned back to 11:47 and my calender says it's June 4th! Stop fucking with the space-time continuum! Pro Lib shall bear witness to what he hath wrought!

      1. Naga will return confused.

        1. Indeed. No doubt Suki will attempt to have me do her bidding by using her feminine wiles on me. But I will be strong as I've told her time and again, "No more Asian chicks for me, please."

        2. Naga will try to resist my Eastern Asian appeal and will fail as soon as I rub my long red nail behind his ear. He will watch the video. He will enjoy the video. He will laugh and become my pawn.


          1. Thwarted by Server Squirrel!

          2. AHHHHHHHHHHH . . .

            That's the spot. And no. I made a promise to myself. No more Asian women. I'm sorry Suki but I just can't follow you down this road. It could be hot Asian women porn for all I know. You wouldn't offer a recovering alcoholic a drink would ya'?

            1. Wine, beer or whiskey my sweet little Naga? [purrrrrrr]

            2. And you can't fool me Naga Sadow! John gave me blog stats access. I saw that Biloxi hit on the page. Someone from Philly is camped out on it too!

  30. Hey suki. What the hell has happened? I can't make sense of the comments. This is much more fun but too difficult to post now. Really.

    1. You sound confused, as I predicted. You are falling under my spell. Now be a good go watch that Bel Airabs link I posted for your enjoyment and pleasure [purr].

    2. Ah, Naga. Our resident philanthropist fullonrapist. I'm not loaning you my shirt, dude, and don't eat a block of cheese next time.

      1. I'm Steve Smith now? Dammit! It must be like tag or something. I was hurting a little bit when I got up at 1 . . .

        1. Aw, did my Naga lose his behymen again? I hope it grows back soon.

          1. If you have a doll, I can show you where he touched me.


    3. I have heard the trick is to not use the preview button.

      1. sage will try to make an appeal that will fall on deaf squirrel ears.

        1. You're being a retard, Suki. Just stop it.

          1. Ancient Asian secret.

        2. Whoa, how did you do that?

        3. Um will look in a mirror and project his feelings about himself onto me.

  31. Reason staff: Could you please enable chronological ordering of the comments now? Just make it an option and these fools will stop.

    1. Reason staff: Also, while you're at it, could you please enable alphabetical ordering as well?

      1. What about ordering by ISP location in descending IP address order?

        1. I like the way you think.

  32. They're griefers, sage. The only way to fight them is to destroy their food source - Mountain Dew Game Fuel.

    1. @ will make a failed attempt at bringing this discussion close to grownup topic.

      1. You lie!

  33. Meanwhile...

    NPR analyst compares Obama to Nixon, issues full apology:


    1. "I apologize for a dumb comparison."

      You lie!

  34. Where is MNG to spread all of his Jew hate here?

    1. Well, you are here now. So how many posts to go before you come and support the genocide of Palestinians? If anyone is the racist, it's you.

      1. You've got that one supports genocide of the Palestinians. Lots support genocide of the jews though, from Hamas to Hezbollah to, no doubt, Libertymike.

        1. Thank you Huh?, you took the club right out of my hand.

    2. What one man calls hatred, tenfold call an honest appraisal of the facts.

      1. Of course when the tenfold happen to be neo-nazi's, one has to wonder...

  35. 'did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

    Sounds to me more like a political statement, than any sort of accurate assessment. This expert would have had to have been a lot of places in history to actually backup what he is saying.

    1. The statement should be easy enough to disprove. Cite an instance when a country in a similar situation did more to safeguard civilians then Israel did.

      1. Someone who thinks he speaks for everyone will accuse me and John of being the same person. Server Squirrel knows for sure.

      2. More Muslims get to vote in Israel than Jews in all of the other mideast countries combined.

        1. everyone does not the world to know this.

  36. Shut the fuck up, Suki/John Tagliaferro. You are a fucking weirdo and you're ruining the best comments section on the interwebs. Seriously.

  37. Yeah, let's talk about Israel and Palestine. It's the discussion that never gets old, kind of like Joan Rivers.

    1. Silly me, I thought that was what this thread was supposed to be about until you screamed at us to talk about something else. What is the topic now, puppet master of SugarFree?

  38. Andrew Sullivan is nothing short of a ridiculous joke - a deeply dishonest man. There was a time when i actually visited his blog - nowadays, every time i read something about Sullivan it only shows how deranged and dumb he has become.

    He throws around the word "neocon" at just about every one who is Jewish and does not agree with his view of the Israeli-Palestinian death match.

    What a total tool.


        1. You are not as funny as SugarFree or Naga.



              1. "You people"? Fuck you, John, you racist gook whore.

                1. Who are you calling racist, Nazi? Who the hell are you calling John!

                  Oh, John, whore, I get it now. LOL

    1. Warty will try to silence me by calling me a boy.

      1. Warty is in need of some discipline. He loves to press the submit button.

  39. Jesus Christ. It's funny when Pro Lib does it, John T. Either post more porn or shut the fuck up.

  40. Kids.

  41. Preferably the latter, you fucking creep.

    1. Grandpa Whithers seems so sweet and nice. Stop being such a meanie!

  42. "I suppose when you are producing 40-50 blog posts a day, it is far easier to shout "neocon" than to engage in honest debate"

    And that's not all. In the meantime Sullivan has to find time to get busted for smoking pot on the beach at a national park in Cape Cod and to find time to round up enough Obama-crats to lobby on his behalf so that Sullivan gets preferential judicial treatment and beats the pot bust and of course to find time to strut about Provincetown parading his muscular glutes all the while wearing a for-rent sign on his derriere.

    No wonder he's too stressed out to write anything coherent.

  43. During Operation Cast Lead Sullivan tried to accuse Israel of war crimes, using (actually misusing and misreading) sources like the Catholic Catechism. It is not exactly surprising that the usual suspects defend the usual suspects on this issue. The UN Human Rights Council is a sick Orwellian joke. On the larger point, the problems with the Goldstone report reflect longstanding problems with human rights politics in general. Groups like HRW and Amnesty International are governed by a certain ideology and use human rights as a vehicle for their viewpoint. Their reports tend to methodologically shoddy, anecdotal and amoral on issue such as terrorism and authoritarianism. The issue is not human rights criticism of democracies as much as the willful blindness in allowing authoritarian regimes to use the same human rights they ignore as a weapon against nations that actually respect them. The eagerness of the so-called human rights community to accept propaganda, to ignore blatant violations of the laws of war (the defense was they were so obvious they didn't require comment) and to craft novel, one-sided rules of warfare that served to disproportionately affect one side was just par for the course.

    1. Your talking right out of your ass. HRW and Amnesty call out authoritarian regimes all the time, regularly. In fact Moynihan has referenced their work at detailing Chavez's thuggish ways. But they also know to call a spade a spade when Israel does it. For many people Israel simply cannot be criticized, so any organization which applies a neutral principle finding some of Israel's actions morally or legally wanting must be attacked with vigor.

      If HRW and Amnesty have leanings they are leanings against state actors; one would think that would be welcome on a libertarian site.

      1. This is not exactly a new issue and has generated a lot of comment over the years. The idea that Israel's defenders are overwrought and every criticism they make is little more than a smear is a cliche-ridden, intellectually dishonest defense that emerges with mindless clockwork every time these type of discussions occur. Yes, HRW and AI are just calling a spade a spade and their work is above reproach. None of the objections raised can possibly have any merit, etc. Is that a fair analysis of the Goldstone report and its sources? The corollary of the supposed "Israel cannot be criticized" rubbish is the presumption that criticism of Israel must be valid. Not exactly an improvement.
        HRW and AI have very definite leanings in this area. But even limiting their supposed leanings as against state actors, what are the consequences in conflicts with non-state actors? What happens if the state actor is held to one standard and the non-state actor (like al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or Hamas) is held to none? It's not that HRW or AI never criticize authoritarian regimes (a strawman). It's rather that they seem to adopt an extreme moral equivalency when authoritarian and non-authoritarian actors come into conflict. On the other hand, seeing how that tends to almost always involve Israel, it may be pointless to generalize.
        But it goes a bit deeper. For example reading a very amateurish production like AI's Report of Police Brutality and its accompanying remarks (a 1990s product) revealed an explicit desire to attack the US as a "human rights bully", to use AI's own words. This was not calling it like it is, but a ideologically driven position. Shocking as it may seem, human rights and ideology intertwine with predictable results.
        What has emerged is that claims of human rights violations have become the terrorists' weapon of choice. It happened against Hezbollah and later against Hamas. It happened before that with the so-called Jenin massacre. Either Israel is objectively a horrible human rights violator or groups that specialize in ignoring human rights have found the HR NGOs specially responsive to their claims of victimization where Israel is concerned. If so, then egregious human rights violators have found a useful means of perpetuating their conduct; human rights groups themselves. Ironic.

  44. Quoted Text

    This is great! Thanks again.

    1. Damn. What's the code for indenting a quote and having a bar appear to the left of it?

      1. less than sign, blockquote, greater than sign then use the close tag version at the end.

      2. strihethrough is just an s between the angle brackets

      3. i think there is a guide someplace at the library, Borders, or even on an intertube someplace. ask around for HTML tags.

      4. Here you go GW:
        I'd make it a link for you but I'm too lazy.

    1. text for blockquote, which I sure hope works and if so, thanks!

      We'll see how this goes...

  45. If "follow the Libertarian tradition of a non-interventionist foreign policy" means abandoning your allies to the tender mercies Iran, Syria and the rest of the enemies of liberty, I think Libertarians are hypocrites. What's the motto, "Liberty for me, but not for foreigners?"

    1. AST wins the thread.

      1. Episiarch will attempt to steal thread victory by giving me a compliment.

    2. It gets worse. These guys only scream about "sovereignty" when concerned about dictatorships the USA is deposing. When it's Israel or the USA whose sovereignty is in danger from yet another commie-written treaty with the UN, you'll hear nary a peep about the importance of national sovereignty from these flaming Libertarian hypocrites. "Sovereignty for dictatorships, but not for representative republics!"

      1. Have you ever actually heard any libertarians' opinions on the UN? Ever?

    3. So what about my liberty? Why should my life and money be put at risk for others?

      Israelis decided to become an independent country, when did they become my responsibility?

      The same applies to any other country, before the "you're an anti-Semite" brigade shows up

    4. AST,

      As a libertarian, I'm capable of believing that something is good without also believing that the American government should be mobilized to promote it. I value freedom for all people. That doesn't mean I want America to be the entire planet's daddy.

  46. Warty, how dare you make fun of John Suki it WTF? Gozer the Gozarian now this is just getting ridiculous a person who randomly shits all over every thread! You are a terrible person! Also, you smell.

    1. Thank you Epi, you are almost as cool as SugarFree.

  47. John, that realdoll you keep in the basement will finally see the light and fall in love with you if you post one more message in its name. What are you waiting for, man?!? LOVE IS AT STAKE!

    1. I liked the Bel Airabs comments a lot better. The doll was for Naga.

      Oh, you are doing some sort of hex on me to imagine that you know stuff. Okay, here ya go.

      1. Epi shall comment with an interesting adaptation of Pooh Goes Apeshit, with a Hitchcock twist.

        1. Laughed so hard I cried reading "Pooh Goes Apeshit":

  48. John looked over at his realdoll. If only she were...real. Her slanted eyes, that flat drove him nuts. "Suki!" he cried out. "Why don't you love me? If you loved me you would become real like Pinocchio and your nose would expand into my rectum and make me feel the way I always wanted to feel. Like a real attention whore, not just one in the internet!"

    Then he saw Warty's hateful, hateful posts. That was it...he would be Suki now, and would make Warty pay by commenting twice as much (if that was possible) on everything everyone said, ever. He'd show that fat reeking pig how annoyance was done on the internet. Warty would PAY.

    "What, mother?" he asked? Suddenly there was a knocking at the hotel office door. "Coming!" He yelled, taking off the wig and old lady dress. Maybe it would be Janet Leigh and he could kill her in the shower? The excitement made him hard. But that was the benefit of having a comically small didn't show.

    He grabbed available room keys and fumed off, savoring when he would come back and punish Warty by commenting mindlessly on every fucking thing anyone said.

    1. I call threadwinner!

      1. I predict John will say something stupid.

        1. I predict Warty will say something. Something rape-ish, that is. Warty is a renowned fullonrapist. Africans, children, you know. Actually, he's a janitor. In a bar. Can he borrow your shirt?

        2. John and Suki are, in reality simply characters invented and played by Fred Savage

  49. Before any game, the Probate Judge must first flip a coin, usually a new Spanish peseta, while the Visiting Captain guesses the toss. If he guesses correctly, the game is cancelled immediately. If not, the Home Team Captain must then decide if he wishes to play offense or defense first. Play begins after a frullip is touched to the flutney and the recitation "My uncle is sick but the highway is green!" is intoned in Spanish. Penalties are applied for infractions such as walling the Pritz, icing on fifth snivel, running with the mob, rushing the season, inability to face facts, and sending the Dummy home early.

    The offensive team has five Snivels (equivalent to downs in American football) to advance to the enemy goal. Carrying the Pritz across the goal line is a Woomik and scores 17 points; hitting it across with the frullip counts as a Durmish and only scores 11 points. Except in the 7th Ogre (and the 8th, if it rains), only the offensive Niblings and Overblats are allowed to score. In such cases, the four Quarter-Frummerts are allowed to kick or throw the Pritz, and the nine Finks are allowed to heckle the opposition by doing imitations of Barry Goldwater.

    The teams are to play a sudden-death overtime to break a tie, unless both Left Overblats are out of the game on personal fouls. If this is the case, the tie is settled by the teams lining up on opposite sides of the flutney and shouting dirty limericks at each other until one side breaks up laughing.

    1. I fail to see how 43-man squamish (as interesting as the sport is at the collegiate level) is relevant to this discussion.

  50. Please check out this youtube video, it's awesome telling the truth about the Government.

  51. Sully went around the bend over gay marriage and hasn't been back since.

    He once appeared so intellectually capable, and now is so "not", that it does lead one to wonder about chronic organic brain damage. That would be horrifying if true, and if so, he deserves our sympathy, and a wave goodbye.

  52. Sully went around the bend over gay marriage and hasn't been back since.

    He once appeared so intellectually capable, and now is so "not", that it does lead one to wonder about chronic organic brain damage. That would be horrifying if true, and if so, he deserves our sympathy, and a wave goodbye.

  53. This place needs a weekend custodian.
    Someone to clean up all the vomit and cigarette butts.

    1. This place needs a weekend custodian.
      Someone to clean up all the vomit and cigarette butts.

      Hit & Run. The Bourbon Street of blogs.

      1. Show me your links!

        1. Hey that's just something we put up with for the joy of hanging out in a blog that allows posting without registration. I think it is well worth the annoyance.

  54. Typical Moynihan post. Ad hominem attack with a side order of cherry picking. You might as well be Victor Davis Hansen for as much integrity as you have.

    1. Thats rich, since Sullivan's post is just an ad hominem attack and cherry picking of fact in itself.

  55. Typical Moynihan post. Ad hominem attack...

    I see what you did there.

  56. No way dude, you hit that one square on the head didnt you? Wow!


  57. The fucking anonymity bot is allowed to post, but I can't get my normal link past the spam filter. What the fuck is this shit?

  58. Warty - The Angry Optimist got the banhammer for outing Lonewacko's real name. A few months later, Lonewacko made a public attempt to do the same thing to myself and Pro Libertate. However, our websites didn't have our names in public view on ICANN, so he failed.

    He wasn't banned. So far as I know, they took no action against him.

  59. What the hell went on here?! I have never seen so much vomit and cigarette butts! Give a poor working guy a break!!

    If it was up to me, NO CHRONOLOGICAL ORDERING!

    1. It's libertarianism, janitor. Anarchy. Reaping what you sow.

      And you missed a spot.

      1. Oh, I guess Ewww don't know me. I always kid the folks after a session like this. 8)

        I'm the weekend guy over at Kos, too. That is some truly disgusting crap they leave behind.

        And I didn't "missed a spot". I'm neither your mother nor your president. Clean up your own mess.

  60. MM,
    Thanks for the Sullivan Watch update...

    There is a parallel to Godwin's Law that gets sorta creepy. When a freaking Harvard grad resorts to referring Wiki entries as sources, there's something tragically wrong. (Hell, even my grade-school kids aren't permitted to refer to Wiki.)

    1. You have way too much respect for Harvard grads. It's entirely possible to graduate from an Ivy League school and not have a fucking clue about important stuff (see Obama, Barack and his economic policies).

      1. Bush the First, Bush the lesser, Antonin Scalia ...

        A dedicated googler could fill up a book.

  61. WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE! Awful lot of internationalist on this board. Non-interventionism does not mean abandoning a nation facing aggression to its own devices. But it does mean making a case by case decision of when and where to intervene. It does not mean not having allies, but it does mean not having permanent allies. It does not mean not engaging in trade, even of military weapons, with other nations. But it does mean not giving a country "carte blanche" access to military technology that they conveniently sell to a possible enemy, like the PRC.

    I have no problem coming to the aid of Israel in the face of a military attack that threatens its sovereignty. But I am sick and tired of the subsidies the US gives them. Maybe if they had to pay more of their military budget from their own bottom line maybe they would start honoring their obligations to stop building settlements. Maybe they would stop responding to mosquito-like attacks of the rag tag Palestinians with a sledgehammer-esque military tactics.

    1. Non-interventionism does not mean abandoning a nation facing aggression to its own devices. But it does mean making a case by case decision of when and where to intervene.

      Wrong. What part of "non-" don't you understand? What you're describing would be closer to "selective interventionism", which quickly mutates into the full-blown variety in practice.

      And I'm sure our allies would be thrilled to know that our alliance with them is only temporary, until we get a better offer. There at least has to be the illusion of permanence for an alliance to mean anything in the first place.

  62. The text of the UN report is available for anyone who wants to look at its evidence and findings.

    1. Where are the UN reports on Sri Lanka, Darfur, the Congo, North Korea, China, etc...? Can you link me to those?

    2. Thanks. Do you have the phone numbers of the Gazans quoted in the report so I can cross examine the witnesses?

      1. There were these couple thousand they could not interview thanks to the IDF...

      2. It's a 450 page report and the best you can come up with is "well, they don't have the phone numbers of the witnesses they talked to?" Reports from other agencies have found similar results. I guess you think the IDF internal report would be the authoritative version, eh? Pathetic jtuf, pedal your crazy Likudianism somewhere else...

  63. The UN has released several reports on war crimes in the DR of Congo, here's one:;Cr1=congo

    They've had many reports on the atrocities in Darfure, here's one:

    The UN closely monitored the conflict in Sri Lanka and criticized the government's actions. Go to their website for them.

    Wow, you really feel like a big dumbass now, don't you?

  64. Yeah, they released reports after the Security Council twisted their arms. What about the so-called UN Human Rights Commission's reports? You would think Sri Lanka, with about 20 times as many casualties as cast lead, would have warranted such a report? One not authored by Sri Lanka, that is...

  65. Yeah, they released reports after the Security Council twisted their arms. What about the so-called UN Human Rights Commission's reports? You would think Sri Lanka, with about 20 times as many casualties as cast lead, would have warranted such a report? One not authored by Sri Lanka, that is...


    You really are ignorant beyond all get about this are'nt you?

    1. MGN, it is not that you are ignorant. It is that you believe things which are not true.

      1. jtuf please don't waste our time with your "I'm just a libertarian who wants to make sure that we don't support either side" line. We've debated this subject long enough for me to know better...Pretty much every major human rights organization has concluded that Israel's latest actions were pretty bad. If you want to argue it on the merits, then be my guest.

        1. I'll take that as a no. I guess you consider the cross examination of witnesses a waste of time. On the plus side, at least you didn't quote wikipedia this time around.

        2. Would you rather live in Gaza or Darfur?

    2. How about you read what the reports actually say. The report on Sri Lanka might as well been written by the government of Sri Lanka, for all it calls Sri Lanka to task. The one on Israel, not so much.

      But I suppose you just want to read the title of the page, rather than the actual documents?

  67. MMM, you're lunch is so tasty!

    So let's see, first you get on here and say "hey, why no UN reports on the violations in the conflicts in Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and it takes me about two seconds to google such reports up and produce them. Then you compound your embarrassment by responding "yeah, but where is the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka", and, of course, two seconds later I produce one (it's freaking on the HOMEPAGE of the Council). Dude, whatever blogs and Fox news shows you watch have let you down BIG time. Let's hope this embarrassment teaches you something...Pitiful.

    1. Oh boy, they have a document titled Human Rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Never mind that the actual document contradicts that.

      Maybe you should actually read what the reports say, next time?

  68. The UN Human Rights Council is not the best indicator of these types of things for some obvious reasons, but they have denounced many other nations other than Israel and their report here is fairly good and more importantly the findings correspond to reports by HRW, Amnesty, etc. The latter groups are much, much more vocal in their criticism of Sri Lanka's heavy handed actions (HRW condemned the UN resolution I linked to above for example), North Korea, Sudan, etc., which makes it even more embarrassing to paint all those charging Israel with war crimes in the recent conflict as "picking on" Israel while ignoring other nation's abuses...

    1. Speaking of the Sir Lanka government's fight against the Tamil Tigers, the Times of India just published this related report.

    2. The UN Human Rights Council (created after the dissolution of the famed Human Rights Commission) has had 11 special sessions. Special sessions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 all dealt with one nation in particular.

  69. This September, there were both pro-Sir Lanka and anit-Sir Lanka demonstrators outside the UN. The pro-Sir Lanka demonstrators told me how difficult it was for their relatives in Sir Lanka who had to doge Tamil Tiger missles for years. They were very grateful that the violence has stopped.

    1. Your problem jtuf is that you can't wrap your head around the idea that there may be people out there who can criticize the Sri Lankan government's actions in dealing with the Tamil Tigers who hold no sympathy for the Tamil Tigers, just as there are people who criticize some Israeli actions while holding no sympathy for Hamas.

      I'm glad to see the Tigers violence and thuggery cease; that doesn't mean that I must approve of all the means by which the Sri Lankan government accomplished that goal, ditto for Israel and Hamas. The wrongs of the Tigers or Hamas, and wrongs there are aplenty there, do not justify any action the Sri Lankan or Israeli government engage in as a response.

      1. MNG continues to make clear why he had to switch to an acronym instead of Mr Nice Guy. Sort of like when Kentucky Fried Chicken had to re-appelate after it was discovered they were serving Avian Species #53F9 rather than actual chicken.

      2. In your opinion, MNG, what should a government do when someone launches a missle from a hospital at a school?

  70. On the general theme about Sullivan just calling someone a neocon as a form of debate; wasn't Sullivan a prominent neo-con just a few years ago????

  71. Such a really wonderful site i am impress your site because this site has good information all of user

  72. This thread is an entertaining train wreck.

    I miss so much on the weekends.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.