THAT SO, MISS THING?

Read the latest steaming pile of Andrew Sullivan's manure if you can do so without vomiting. To Kelso's millions of gay readers, all I can say is that I admire your patience and tolerance. Good thing for Miss Thing that he's a Catholic. Were he Jewish, I'd have long ago revoked his shtetl pass.

Only one Republican can end this war with honour

Andrew Sullivan

I hate to break the news, but quite what is happening in Iraq is not exactly clear. We know a few things. There is a marked decline in sectarian violence and civilian deaths. The rate of murder and mayhem is now roughly where it was in the first months of 2006. At the same time, before you get too excited, we are at the peak of US troop presence, with some 175,000 now in the country.

Those of us who argued that the fundamental problem with the Iraq occupation was insufficient man-power can take some sliver of solace from this. But perhaps not for long: the troop levels will very soon start to decline and by next spring the sheer metrics of troop redeployment will mean a big withdrawal.

Will the violence resume? Will the civil war take off again? No one knows. What we do seem to know is that the Iraqi leaders, especially the Shi’ite-dominated “government”, have a few months at most to strike a national bargain over the constitution, oil revenues, the military and police force with minority Kurds and Sunnis. From everything we can tell, they won’t. Then what?

This would be a good question for John McCain. He was one of the very few Republicans to pull off a national security hat-trick: he supported the war in Iraq, he subsequently became a ferocious critic of the feckless occupation, and then full-throatedly backed the “surge”. There aren’t many people on the national scene who did all three.

Mormon smears turn Republican race sour
Most observers honest enough to do the first two looked at the troop levels General David Petraeus was proposing and didn’t think it could be done. It’s still unclear, for that matter, what has been done. Is the decline in violence a function of the Anbar tribes’ decision to turn on Al-Qaeda – something they decided before the surge? Is it related to the dramatic ethnic cleansing, separation and exile that have occurred in Iraq these past two years, thus making ethnic friction and violence less necessary? Is it a function of the Shi’ite militias simply waiting the Americans out? Or is it a result of competent counter-insurgency policies enacted for the first time since the invasion? I’d say some as yet undetermined mix of all of the above. But the answer does matter, especially for McCain and the Republicans.

It matters because McCain offers the Republicans a way to support a still unpopular war and maintain a scintilla of credibility on national security. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have all punted on the issue of Iraq to some degree or other in the campaign so far. None will directly attack President George Bush, since he is still a semi-religious figure among the Republican base. All support the surge for now, but none has detailed what they would do next year, let alone the first year of their own potential presidency. We know Giuliani wants to bomb Iran. But we know little else.

Which leaves McCain. Yes, he’s still out there. His disappointing past six months have had one beneficial effect: he has stopped being too cautious, resumed his habit of talking nonstop to any hack within hearing range, and put his mother on television to have a go at Romney.

I loved his response to the somewhat staggering news that the Christian right’s Pat Robertson had now joined Giuliani’s campaign: “I’m speechless.” Well, when two oddballs gather together – one who blamed feminists and gays for causing 9/11, the other who hounded ferret owners as mayor of New York City – silence is often golden. McCain has even attacked Senator Hillary Clinton for securing federal funds for a Woodstock museum. It may be 2007, but you can still run against hippies.

McCain, however, looks better not just because he has stuck to his pro-war position while acknowledging painful reality, but because the others have increasingly looked so unnerving. Romney’s plastic demeanour and say-anything style have not caught on outside the first two states where he has poured millions of his own money into blanket television advertising. Thompson has yet to seem a viable president. Giuliani’s bizarre personal quirks and all-purpose, random hawkishness do not calm nerves in a very unstable world. Fellow Republican candidate Mike Huckabee is a jovial inheritor of Bush’s spend-like-Jesus conservatism, but has zero foreign policy experience. And so . . . we come back to McCain.

It’s obviously his turn. He was runner-up in 2000 and a loyal Bushie (through gritted teeth) in 2004. He’s more reliably pro-life than any of the other big names; he is extremely well versed in foreign policy; and his integrity on the detention and interrogation question makes him the sole Republican president who could reassure the world that the US will not continue to torture prisoners. He’s also able to appeal to independents in a way no other Republican can – except Rudy on a very good day.

The polls are beginning to reflect this reality. McCain does better against Clinton in hypothetical match-ups than any of the others. The latest Fox News poll finds 47% think McCain “says what he believes”, while 39% think he says what he thinks will get him elected – an eight-point honesty advantage. Giuliani has a three-point deficit on the same score. And 57% say McCain is “honest and trustworthy” – including half of Democrats and 60% of independents. Among Republicans, McCain has moved into second place nationally for the first time since the summer.

The odds against McCain are still high. But he is not unimaginable as the nominee. It’s worth recalling that in December 2003, at about this time in the primary cycle, John Kerry had a national rating of 4%. If one establishment Vietnam vet can come back from the political dead to win the nomination it can happen again.

McCain’s positions on the war, moreover, even when they have been mistaken, have always been honest and responsible. The New York Times columnist David Brooks summed up his moments of opportunism thus: “There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired.”

He is also the sole Republican who candidly believes climate change is real and Americans have a duty to deal with it. Translation: he seems in touch with the reality most Americans now accept.

But to me, what McCain offers is something deeper than any of this: honour. This man knows the price and horror of war and its occasional necessity. If McCain is president, no military prisoner will be tortured, and no debates will be had over the precise terminology of torture either.

If McCain is president, many supporters of the other party will actually listen again to a president with an open mind. If McCain is president, there will be no quarter given to Islamist terrorists, but there will be no denial of reality, false pride or contempt for allies either.

And if McCain is president, it is conceivable that a Republican could end the war in Iraq without dishonour or panic. I don’t think that could currently be said of any of his rivals.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Mr Sullivan:

Why do you hate yourself so much? Forget it. I know why and I come back to it. But for real little pussies like David Brooks make you feel ashamed of what you like to do with your body, huh? How pathetic. I am going to be nice about this for a second. Then I'm not going to be so nice. Ready? Speaking as a straight White Jewish man, I assure you 100% that being gay is NORMAL. My crowd is all mixed. I'm not in a big hurry to fuck Friend A but I enjoy hanging with him. Normal. See. That's how civilized people are. If you're cool, what does it matter if you do different stuff with your parts than I do? If I'm cool, what does it matter what I do with my shit? You hate reading that, don't you, you punk, sissy, faggot, queen, queer. You hate reading that because you're reading words that don't apply in your twisted circle of homophobic bellicose neo-Cons. You know that over here it's great. Everybody's chill and having a good time and we don't do shame. Who are "we," you ask? You fucking well know. Liberals.

You? Punk, faggot, sissy, queen, queer. Pumping iron in the gym take away the self-loathing? Nah. Didn't think so. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Want to know why? Because you are my enemy. You are the enemy of other gay person on earth, too. You are so happy that McCain is "reliably pro-life." It's all of a piece. How's Johnny CrippleHands on gay rights? How does that help millions of American women exactly? You don't care, do you? Just like you don't care about the death and destruction of the wars you support for "the good of society." Fair enough. So, suit up and get a gun and fight. Not in a big hurry to do that, eh? Why? Oh, I know, because you are too valuable to the war-on-terror as a columnist. Bullshit. You have negative value as a columnist. You're just scared to fight a war. Punk, faggot, sissy, queen, queer.

So, it's good to be "reliably pro-life". Is it good to solicit "bare-back" HIV+ sex in anonymous chatrooms? I don't judge anyone on what they do with their bodies, but gee whiz, your tastes are a little out of the mainstream, si o no? And I have quite a catholicity of things I consider mainstream. Like to have a train pulled on you? Mazel tov. Like Turkish Milkshakes? Fantastic. Have at it. But messing around on HIV+ chatrooms, soliciting unsafe sex? What was that line in the Eminem ditty: "temper temper/didn't think I'd remember?" Oh, I remember alright. Think JohnnyCrippleHands remembers? David Brooks? If they don't, I'll set the record straight. HEY THERE! JOHNNYCRIPPLEHANDS! DAVID BROOKS! YOUR FELLOW-TRAVELLER ANDREW SULLIVAN LIKES TO SOLICIT BARE-BACK HIV+ SEX ON CHATROOMS. Still sure you want him on your team? God, I hope so.

What is it about being a right-wing fascist scumbag that brings out these sociopathic perversions? And, Mary, don't try to say that you've been any kind of advocate of gay rights. You've whined about not granting "special privileges" as long as I've know that you walk the earth.

McCain. Wow. If McCain ever took the position on Jews that he does on gays and women, you think I'd be writing laudatory articles about him? Sorry. Wait. He's an anti-Semitic fuck and I always trash him whenever possible. Why do you think I call him JohnnyCrippleHands?

John McCain? "Honour?" That's pretty fucking funny. Here's another good one: "If McCain is president, no military prisoner will be tortured, and no debates will be had over the precise terminology of torture either." JohnnyCrippleHands wrote the Military Commissions Act. What is that about anyway? It's about the right to torture. Is Sullivan stupid or does he just think his readers are stupid? Or does hating the person in the mirror ruin the person's ability to think after a while? It would all be a big joke except for a few little elements: Sullivan has a big pulpit, he's a malign force, and worst of all he's gotten rich off all this silliness.

The fundamental problem with the Iraq occupation is the Iraq occupation.

Kelso's Nuts love you