Can we just say Andrew Sullivan is maybe a bit out of it, once and for all?
I mean, REALLY.
The guy always said Kerry and Bush had no differences in fighting the war on terror or natl security in general...of course that's nonsense. Kerry made it perfectly clear- US action would be limited by what the UN said we could and could not do, which clearly hinders the principal job of the president, which is national security. Not to mention, it goes against everything the Constitution tells us about protecting this nation. No other nation or world body will have rule or sway over our right to protect the homeland.
Bush dominated Kerry on matters of national security and the war in Iraq, consistently. That's because, as we all know, the democratic party has become a weak party on defense. Like Carter (our worst president) and Bill Clinton (let's bomb aspirin factories in the Sudan to take attention away from my pejury in regards to Jones and Lewinsky!), Kerry was obviously weak on defense. That's why Kerry did that ridiculous salute at the DNConvention. I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty...what?! Come on! Laughable, even to many dems. Kerry's weakness, rooted in his liberal mindset was even evident with his neverending mentions that, believe it or not- he was in Vietnam. Sure, he was only there for 3 months and put in for medals he probably didn't deserve, shot video of himself to use later for senate campaigns, came home and lied about his fellow troops, wrote a book that attacked the US and the US military, and went to Paris to commit treason by meeting with the communist N. Vietnamese govt., but dag nabbit, he was there and he wants you to know it.
Even further, the list of blunders Kerry made in regards to his return from Vietnam and his treasonous trip to Paris shows him to be as weak as they come. A candidate who is strong on defense would have never held these values, and if he had at some point- he would have turned his back on them long ago. He didn't. He never apologized for what he did when he came back from war. He still denies he was at meetings of radical peace hippies in the 70's where they discussed killing senators who supported the war effort, even tho numerous eyewitnesses have come forward to say he was, in fact, at those meetings. All of this exposed Kerry as a weak on defense liberal who wouldn't be able to fight the war on terror.
Finally, we have his flip-flopping on the Iraq issue. Kerry spoke out against Clinton when that president refused to take Iraq seriously, then when Bush did just that, Kerry flipped and attacked Bush, even tho Kerry himself voted in support of the war. We have to note, Kerry did try to deny he supported the war quickly after this, and claimed he was supporting the president's right to "threaten force."
So, that kills any argument that any reasonable person could say that Kerry and Bush took anywhere near the same route on defense issues.
Then, we have the fact that Sullivan can't get off the gay issue. Yes, he's gay, but that doesn't mean that he should be obsessed with every single issue being a 'gay issue.' It isn't, and I would say that he knows as much, but I don't think he does. I think his mind is so warped, he truly believes that nearly every issue on earth is ultimately a gay issue in some manner.
Following this line of thinking, Sullivan declares that the war on terror and the Iraq war is somehow a gay issue as well. I didn't even read the entire piece, but I have read elsewhere (and on Sullivan's site itself) that Sullivan claims that the "right wing" (he's a republican but attacks the 'right wing' ALL the time), is attacking gays and that they are ulitmately trying to steal away all gay rights. What are gay rights? I've no idea. Gays can do anything non-gays can do, outside of marry (which is perfectly fine, and that's not limiting their so-called "gay" rights.) Also, in regards to gay marriage, the great majority of Americans are opposed to it and for the 11 or so states that had the issue on the ballot last year, didn't every one of them vote to ban gay marriage? Even liberal Oregon voted down gay marriage...so that kills his argument of this being a right wing issue and that the right wing is out to get gays. It's Americans, in general, who are opposed to gay marriage and so-called "gay rights" that go beyond what even other Americans have.
So, 2 main points of his piece are totally destroyed, which says what? He's ignorant of the facts? He's full of false rhetoric? Maybe...he's unstable and slowly losing it? You can make that decision for yourself.
Then, you have the fact that he tries to link this so-called theocratic movement with the war in Iraq, and that these right-wing zealots (his opinion, not mine) are using the issue to push a religous agenda. Of course, that's silly, and it's a big stretch to even attempt to connect the two, but Sullivan does just that, while also claiming that this vast religious conspiracy is attempting to strip all rights away from gays, in a ploy to make sure everything in society conforms to a biblical viewpoint. (Anti-religious (read: anti-christian) hysteria...you've gotta love it.)
I have to say one last thing- what's with sites (blogs mainly) asking for donations, having donation drives (what is this, PBS?) and the like? It's an odd tactic. Ads on the sidebar to pay for bandwidth, I can understand, but constant linkings asking for donations and drives that raise tens of thousands of dollars...too weird for me.
Sullivan is, in my opinion, confused to the point of being unstable at best, and a complete hypocrite (or at least semi-hypocrite) at worst. He links himself to the republicans, yet always attacks the party. He says he believes this view and that, and that's his philosophy, then he does a flip and takes the opposite (or nearly opposite) point of view. I don't understand conservatives that even listen to this guy, and I really get confused by those who semi-worship him, as tho what he has to say is vital in any meaningful way. I don't listen to anything he says, and with his hysterical point of view half the time, that's probably a good thing.