Sullivan and the Backers of Freedom: A Musical

Today's reason why Andrew Sullivan is not very smart.

I'm with David [Brooks] on the assessment of Paul Wolfowitz. I've never understood the demonization of this man, whose integrity has always struck me as unimpeachable. He truly is a sincere backer of freedom around the world, has taken many lumps defending that increasingly vindicated principle, and been subjected to the usual obloquy from the reactionary parts of the left. The only moral question that hangs over him is the deployment of torture. I have no idea what his involvement in that shameful chapter of the war has been. But it would go against everything I know about the man to think he would approve. Or am I being naive?

Even if the deployment of torture were the only moral question hanging over Wolfowitz's head, you'd think that'd be enough to hold praising him as a "sincere backer of freedom." Sullivan doesn't seem to realize that sincerity in backing freedom does not make one exempt from backing it with heinous acts--you could make a very superficially convincing argument for backing freedom with questionable methods, where essentially the end would justify the means and sound very fucking sincere. Actually, aren't fanatics the most sincere backers of stuff? But no, Andrew knows better. Everything he knows about the man--I'd like to know exactly what that is--tells him that Wolfowitz could not have approved the torture of detainees. No Andrew, you're not naive, there's a word for what you are, and naive is not even a euphemism for it.