ANDREW SULLIVAN VS. THE NEW YORK TIMES….Josh Chafetz takes Andrew Sullivan to task today for going way over the top in his criticism of today’s New York Times editorial in which they oppose war unless it has “broad international support.”
Josh’s piece is well taken. The pro-war crowd has just got to stop accusing the anti-war crowd of being unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worst. It just hurts your own cause, guys.
And on the substance of the Times editorial, I’m not even sure why it qualifies as “stupid.” Josh may disagree, but suggesting that the United States not undertake a pre-emptive war unless it has broad international support seems like a perfectly defensible position ? and one shared by a very large number of Americans if polls are to be believed. In this case, I’d say the Times is pretty much in the dead center of the political spectrum.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, thinks Andy’s position is just swell and says sneeringly, “I guess this would matter more, if the editorial positions of the Times mattered more.”
Note to Glenn: I’m pretty sure the Times still has a teensy bit more influence in national affairs than InstaPundit. Hard to believe, I know….
UPDATE 2: Now Glenn has a genuinely weird update to his post. The sentence I excerpted above was his sole reaction to Sullivan’s comment, but now he says that he meant it to be “archly indicating that I think Andrew is a bit over the top.” Huh? How do you figure that?
Then he burbles on about people in “positions of influence,” like….Chrissie Hynde. And says the Times has an “irrational dislike for President Bush.” I dunno Glenn, maybe it’s, you know, actually based on something. You never know.
I think Glenn has been drinking too much of Atrios’ gin.