I swear you guys are so cruel. *LOL*

Why do bloggers love to pick on Sullivan so much? Well I guess it better than the consistent bashing that Michelle Malkin does to him on her blog.

Is there a protocol for this? Do we have to head to the cellar, or tape plastic sheets over the windows?

I think there should be an explosive top to that bar, sorta like the thing goes into complete explosion when it hits the top.

And that you should have a "Desperate for Donations" rung at the bottom.

Maybe call it "Needy"...

Sullivan has a point, actually.

There was a lot of skullduggery involved with the intelligence on WMD. Yesterday's report shows that it wasn't there and it didn't go to Syria.

It's pretty stupid to conclude that this was just some sort of innocent foray of Team Bush.

That's not the money-line.

This is:

"Gay couples who have had basic rights taken away from them since November, might feel more aggrieved."

Name one, Andrew. Name one right that gay couples had in November that they don't have now.

You'll find that most, if not all, were ones they never really had to begin with.

I think there was a lot of "skullduggery" committed by a lot of people, especially Saddam Hussein and a few other despots in the Middle East...

The intelligence issues could possibly have been largely influenced by the fact that you had a higher degree of covertness involved to avoid the terrorist radar about intelligence and a lot of individuals reporting all at once...

Based upon Hussein's (and others) having been able to squirrel away so many millions of dollars and for so long -- right there in front of everyone worldwide -- and involving the U.N. at that (not necessarily a secreted enterprise, at least it was believed up until recently), that no matter what was available afterward, it would still be confusing and require a great degree of interpretation afterward to arrive at any sense.

To suggest that the war in Iraq, however, was "wrong" because we later could not find WMD seems nonsensical. We found Saddam Hussein, we found evidence of his horrors, we found what remained of the people there, and we're trying to find those responsible for aiding and abetting his horrors on a global scale, particularly as to how he managed to squirrel away all that money for all those years.

I think his monetary network IS the WMD. Funding that enables various groups to inflict terrorist acts IS, literally, the weapon.

Sullivan is just continuing to look for the reason to disbelieve. He'll always be looking for the reason to disbelieve, unless he undergoes a spirtual change.

Carla's right. There are Earnest Questions Without Evidence that Need Answers (EQWETNA, pronounced eck-WET-na).

Certainly, someone must prove the absence of this negative!

It's pretty stupid...

...of me to have finished reading that sentence. Or for that matter, to have started reading that comment.

The whole "theocracy" thing is so unbelievably absurd, it's hard to believe that people are actually buying into it.

No - Carla's wrong.

Carla, maybe you need to check the report before you begin deriding "Team Bush". According to an article in today's Washington Times Charles Duelfer said that although they had not found any stockpiles of WMD, he could not rule out the possibility that Iraqi WMD had been moved to Syria. To quote the article - "The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there. " The ONLY thing at issue here is what happened to the WMD. The fact is that Saddam had WMD at one time. If you don't believe that ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Liberals want to pretend that since the WMD have not been found they never existed. Trying reading the report instead of listening to the MSM.

Is it just me, or does "gobsmack(ed)" sound like a sound efect from a pRon movie?

I just cannot believe that guy was once considered 'conservative'.

Not that anyone will ever read this...given the old thread...but:

About "Am I A Pundit Now?" posed the issue I raised a long time ago...

that Sullivan was never a conservative. There were more than a few bloggers who "rose to fame" (ha) approaching and up to the last presidential election -- Sullivan was among those -- who were posers: they were/are liberals POSING as conservatives, milking donations and generating doubt about conservative issues.

And, what was worse, they managed to deceive a lot of people into even spending time, much less donations, on their sites and engaging in dramatic naysaying, subtle discouragements, just on and on and on, droning on with doubt about this conservative issue, doubt about that one...

It was (and still is) a form of defeatism and not without plan, to my view. Liberals have that sense of drama down well, like, you know:

Forged but real.

Notice that Sullivan (and Wonker and a handful of other 'bloggers') got national mention and is featured as being an exmaple of "blogging" and such and the liberal media regards him so (most conservatives don't).

I used to ask WHY in Sam Hill any conservative would EVER consider donating money to Sullivan's site and no one ever responded, and yet Sullivan reaped a European vacation and more and does anyone wonder why and how?

He created drama, and some people fell for it.

But he was never and is not now a conservative, continuing to pose one subtle rip in faith here, another there, and another and another and what you end up with is someone who poses as a conservative "filled with doubt" (rage/whatever) about conservative platforms and legislation and nominees and community and all.

Not a conservative. Never was. Sullivan is a ghost of I Hate Christmas Past.

We need one for Jim Lampley now.