Andrew Sullivan, July 3, 2007
What more do we need to know? These people think they are above the law. This president thinks he is above the law. The vice-president believes he is above the law. And when democratic leaders act as if they are the law unto themselves, and are prepared to upend the justice system to serve their own political ends, it’s time for a revolt.
Andrew Sullivan, July 03, 2003:
“BRING THEM ON”: No, I don’t think it’s merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs’. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn’t always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.
This isn’t an argument…
More memories from the golden summer of war….
Andrew Sullivan, June 16, 2003:
THE CASE FOR OPTIMISM: With each front-page story in the New York Times and every report from the BBC predicting the q-word for American troops in Iraq, my optimism ticks up. This isn’t to say that we don’t have a hell of a task in Iraq and that some of it won’t be tough on soldiers. But in the broader view, there are a handful of encouraging signs in the Middle East, all of which suggest that the Bush gamble on remaking the region is again defying skeptics. Egypt is now seriously engaged in pressuring Islamist terrorists to deal with the Palestinian Authority. The intervention of Arab countries in this dispute is central to any hope of even minimal success. My bet is that many of these Arab leaders have grown to respect Bush and even fear him. Iraq was a critical testing ground for this trust; and the president proved his mettle. Meanwhile, the news from Iran is inspiring.
Andrew Sullivan, July 17, 2003:
CAN THE TRUTH BE A LIE? The WSJ uncovers the national intelligence estimate of the uranium-Africa Saddam link. It’s clear; solid; still backed by the Brits. The more I read about this, the less there is to the critics’ hyper-ventilation and glib assertions of “lies” where no lies were spoken. The president and the prime minister should go on the offensive soon. Maybe Blair will in front of Congress.
Andrew Sullivan, July 18, 2003:
This is what the carpers and nay-sayers still don’t understand. The West is at war with a real and uniquely dangerous enemy. When the consequences of negligence become catastrophic, the equation of intervention changes. The burden of proof must be on those who counsel inaction rather than on those who urge an offensive, proactive battle. Does it matter one iota, for example, if we find merely an apparatus and extensive program for building WMDs in Iraq rather than actual weapons? Or rather: given the uncertain nature of even the best intelligence, should we castigate our leaders for over-reacting to a threat or minimizing it? Since 9/11, my answer is pretty categorical. Blair and Bush passed the test. They still do.