Friedersdorf Digs Sullivan's Crazy Anti-Semitism

Valley of the Shadows has been on this angle.

I detest such vile displays. It's a good thing it isn't allowed on Talk Radio where they police such things for appropriateness. Why do these young post-menstrual, or whatever they are, faux conservatives support hate speech? Are they anti-Semites at heart?

Friedersdorf ... hmm, is that a German name?

Gosh, I hope that isn't it.

Comments

[x11b1p]

Ouch!! Dan have you been watching UFC on Spike TV, you are dropping the hammer lately like a Spartan on meth!

[Lala]

Thanks for showing me a new blog, looks interesting, especially as he likes Pam Geller, as do I.

[Dan Riehl]

I blame the water in DC, x1. heh!

[JSF]

Dan,

All we are doing is asking trying to get to the truth. Does Conor support Sullivan's rants against Israel more then American Jews in the electorate?

We need to always ask these questions till we get to the bottom of it.

Have you noticed that Conor has never written a piece on any platform critical of the Obama administration?

How can he be a conservative?

We must ask questions if his liberalism is tied to his anti-Jew stance.

[Joe]

When you accuse Sullivan of being an Anti-Semite, have a link to Sullivan being an Anti-Semite. I am no fan of Sullivan's behavior of the last few years, but if you accuse someone of something serious like that--show the proof to back it up.

Sullivan and his Pony Boy lacky Charles Johnson accuse people of racism all the time, without any proof. Don't fall into the same trap. Back it up. The proof shall show the truth.

[JSF]

Joe,

Just follow the links, there is detail on his posts on what AS did (and Conor defends).

Why does Conor want to defend an anti-jew?

[Jamie S. Lockett]

Did you just Godwin yourself in your own post?

[Bob]

I guess dishonest propagandists like Riehl and whatshisface at "Valley of the Shadow" think that if they put too many dead links between their exaggerated accusations and the source of Sullivan's supposed smears, people will take them at their word. Here's an example from one of Sullivan's posts that whatshisface provides as an example of Sullivan's supposed anti-semitism (I provide the ACTUAL link so you can read it in its entirety):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/the-israel-lobb.html

"Sometimes, it seems to me, the admirable passion many have for the Jewish state can flood the frontal cortex and not allow for a more measured take on specific issues. As the US prepares to make the toughest decision since the Iraq war - whether to launch an Iran war - this is more vital than ever."

This is supposed to be anti-semitism? What, isn't the U.S. allowed to question the wisdom of starting wars in the Middle East if enough neocons or right wing Israeli politicians demand it? What a bunch of crap. Here's another supposedly damning post by Sullivan:

"He is saying that US policy toward Israel has been a contributing factor to the rise of Islamism in the Middle East, and it may provoke worse in the future unless we restore America's position as an honest broker. I agree, and believe we have tilted too far in defense of Israel these past few years (and Gaza was the last straw for me)."

Get it? It's "anti-semitic" to question whether Israel used disproportionate force and may have deliberately targeted civilians in a recent attack on Gaza. How dare anyone questioin Israel like that! Waaaah! WAAHHHHH!!!

Anyway, Dan, now I know why you "forgot" to provide any quotes or links to your incredibly lame and dishonest source at "Valley of the Shadow." That's how WE know that YOU know you're being dishonest. Anything to sucker the rubes though, eh, Dan?

[Bob]

Oops, here's the link to that second post of Sullivan's:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/hostility-to-an.html

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, Bob, your desperate attempt to spin for your fellow Jew-hater Andrew Sullivan is nothing more than your usual bit of smokescreening.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/288764.php

But that's no surprise; we should remember what Barack Obama, the Obama Party, and its base think about Jews.

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_jews.asp

http://www.bet.com/News/NewsArticleWrightSaysJewsKeepingHimFromObama?cid=YSSP

[templar knight]

NDT, Barack's base includes Bob the Troll. And speaking of rubes, remove that mote from your eye, Bob, before you criticize that splinter in mine. Oh, crap, I used another one of those old quotes. Those really get to Bob.

[Mike2Cents]

AS is not an anti-semite.
Political opportunism is the reason Dan's brand of conservatism now embraces this flinging of this charge....there no real concern about real antisemitism.
Also worth noting that Dan's brand of conservatism bows at the altar of xenephobic nationalism & jingoism, which is a lot more 'German' (in the historical context) than the conservatism CF advocates.
A refusal to criticize or find fault with any Israeli policies does not equate with an empathy or understanding of the Jewish people - it just makes you another fair weather friend.
So get off your high horse...you look silly up there.

[templar knight]

"Politcal opportunism is the reason Dan's brand of conservatism now embraces this flinging of this charge...there (is) no real concern about real antisemitism."

Kinda like all those charges of racism everytime someone criticizes Barack Obama. Is that what you mean, Mikey? Since there is no real concern about racism. Now what did you call that? Oh, yeah, political opportunism!

[Mike2Cents]

Once again, predictably...the 'but they do it' defense.
I assume, TK, this means you find fault with both?

[Bob]

"Political opportunism is the reason Dan's brand of conservatism now embraces this flinging of this charge....there no real concern about real antisemitism."

Maybe Dan feels he needs to bolster his usual puerile homophobic mockery with dishonest accusations of anti-semitism in trying to smear Sullivan. And if that doesn't work, he'll try to link him with ACORN or the ACLU. That last thing Dan would EVER do, however, is attempt to address the substance of Sullivan's commentary. Dan's much better at throwing poop and slinging slurs than trying to carry on a serious, intelligent discourse, as anyone who's watched him get pwned time and again by Conor Friedersdorf has seen.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.