Andrew's piffle

Sim is disappointed. A late arrival, but welcome none the less:

I used to really see a lot of smart stuff coming out of Andrew Sullivan. Now it's just weak piffle. I'm embarrassed that I linked him so frequently in the past. I still give him credit for sussing out good sites and articles, but anymore his opinions don't seem to mesh much with reality. (Exception: the torture issue and I give him mad props for sticking it out on that front)

Well my friend, if the New Yorker...thingie...that Andrew put together disappoints you, I'm left unsure where this will find you; last week's terror bust is at best trumped up, at worst pure concoction:

So far, no one has been charged in the alleged terror plot to blow up several airplanes across the Atlantic. No evidence has been produced supporting the contention that such a plot was indeed imminent. Forgive me if my skepticism just ratcheted up a little notch.

If the only evidence they have was from torturing someone in Pakistan, then they have nothing that can stand up in anything like a court. I wonder if this story is going to get more interesting. I wonder if Lieberman's defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled.

I wish I didn't find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration.

Been there. Done that. Learned my lesson.

John Podhoretz gets down right snippy about it, taking a swipe at Andrew's emotional investment in the whole question of torture:

Andrew Sullivan appears extremely eager--desperately eager, hysterically eager--to believe there was far less to the British terror plot than meets the eye. Why? I suspect because of the news stories yesterday suggesting that it was broken up in part due to the use of torture in Pakistan. If that is true, Sullivan's passionate project over the past two-and-a-half years to declare torture everywhere, at every moment, and in every circumstance unacceptable goes up in smoke.

While a perfectly satisfying comment, it hardly illuminates the questions that Andrew raises. For myself, the government still gets the benefit of the doubt because terrorism is still more of a threat than the alleged schemings of George W. Bush. Call me a sychophant if you must, but unless you can fill in the blanks with something more than conspiracy theory you're at a disadvantage.

Essentially that's what conspiracy theories are; a view of known events married to a no-doubt earnest desire to know everything, giving way to conjecture. Andrew's questions are valid, but his presentation is wrapped in the blanket of his well-known dislike (that's the nice term for it) for W and his Administration's policies. Minus the dripping sarcasm and adversarial tones, it's an interesting thought.