Today, Andrew Sullivan quotes the following passage from The American Conservative:
Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and whyâ€”thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculationâ€”as the record suggests it was for several of his top aidesâ€”the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iranâ€™s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israelâ€™s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.
The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory.
Sullivan then adds: “Yes, there’s the usual anti-Semitic undertow here. It’s Buchanan’s posse. At the same time, on the simple facts on the ground, is any of this even debatable at this point?”
What? Where’s the anti-Semitism? And if none of the passage is “even debatable at this point,” then is this an admission of anti-Semitism on Sullivan’s part? Or can he just not follow his own train of thought past a period?
I understand that Americans are mesmerized by British accents, which accounts for Sullivan’s (and Hitchens’) popularity on the talk shows, but how does he get away with this stupidity in print?