This morning, Hugh Hewitt did a lengthy post on the “180s”–conservatives, some real and some faux, and others, who once supported President Bush on the war and now have turned against him. Hugh makes many good points along the way. His skewering of Andrew Sullivan is priceless:
The same path has been traveled by Andrew Sullivan, who soured on the war as soon as it sunk in that same-sex married couples would not be allowed to fight it.
And I like his typology of war opponents:
Djerejian, Sullivan, and Chait represent three of the four classes of the non-crazed lefty critics of Bush’s conduct of the war: the talented and serious, the talented and unserious, and the not-talented and unserious. (There are scores and scores of the not-talented and serious. We do not hear from them.)
Hugh is right that former supporters haven’t turned against the President because he has changed course:
Quite simply their hatred of Bush overwhelmed their understanding of the world. What is the source of that hatred?
It isn’t because of Bush’s policies on the war. Bush has done exactly what he said he would do on every issue that matters. He has done what they cheered in March of 2003.
But I’m not sure Hugh’s diagnosis, that the 180s have turned against the war because they feel disdained and excluded from the councils of power, is right either. Except, perhaps, as to George Will, but he was never much in favor of the war anyway.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.