His policy is being fixed around the facts, sort of

Sometimes we amaze even ourselves. In our 1st London post yesterday, we listed a couple of themes that we expected to surface in the coverage. Of course, reality-based people everywhere quickly zeroed in on the "flypaper" zombie -- the DoA rationale for the ability of the Iraq war to attract global terrorists there to be killed. Andrew Sullivan's ears were burning while this was going on, and as usual, his response merits the curate's egg -- some admission of past flaws, but the old rhetorical tricks still in play nonetheless:

Now for some criticism from the left, i.e. from Atrios and Kos. (Atrios Dowdifies my [flypaper] quote, making it seem as if I wrote it, while in context I'm actually relating the arguments of someone in the Bush administration.) ... And to be honest, I still don't know how to judge [flypaper]. I'm not prepared to dismiss it out of hand; but the evidence against its efficacy also seems to me to have accumulated over the past couple of years ... I don't think the debate is over, or that the concept was obviously nutty from the start ... But this blog is a little different. It's an attempt to think out loud, which means there will be shifts over time in argument and emphasis. It may appear wishy-washy or excitable or whatever. But it's my best attempt to figure things out as I go along. If you don't like it, read someone else. If you have a point to make, please email me. I try and read as much criticism of my fallible work as I can.

Note the pleasing word "Dowdify" -- gotta get the digs in at the New York Times even when under fire. And is his last sentence an admission that he reads Sullywatch? But on balance, despite the reluctance to toss flypaper completely, it's not so bad.

He's also engaged in a feud with James Taranto of OpinionJournal, who has been deliberately peppering recent editions with Old Sully quotes, especially as they relate to Gitmo, and Sully gets around to a riposte:

Yesterday, James Taranto took yet another dig at my early attitude to reports of "poor treatment" of terrorist captives. In January 2002 and for a while thereafter, I somewhat summarily dismissed reports of mistreatment of detainees as probably enemy propaganda and certainly not something that should worry us too much ... I'm not proud of those sentences, but they rested on a basic level of trust that of course enemy combatants might be treated roughly, but would not be subject to systematic abuse, torture or beatings ... This was the Bush administration, people I trusted. I had no idea - and perhaps I should be held responsible for my naivete - that memos were being written allowing for torture and abuse to occur under the legal cover of a president's wartime authority ... But after Abu Ghraib, I obviously changed my tune. The facts available to me changed; and so I changed my mind. When the facts available to me change, I change my mind. But then I guess I'm not James Taranto.

Given who he's battling, all well and good. But, a point often made by his critics, there was ample evidence of Dubya's mendacity even by 2002, not least from Paul Krugman on fiscal policy, which functioned as a clear leading indicator for anyone concerned about how the GWOT would be managed.

Then though, he goes and ruins everything. After assuring us he's not Taranto, we get this:

EPIPHANY WATCH: Just as in the U.S. after 9/11, some who once dismissed terrorism as an over-rated threat have begun to change their minds a little.

Terrorism as Epiphany -- this is vintage Taranto, item #3 in our list from yesterday. We don't know about Taranto's religiosity, but as a knowledgable Catholic, Sully has no excuse for this.

UPDATE: It's fallibility week for The Right. Glenn Reynolds, who has favoured torture, flypaper, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, budget deficits, and generalised reactionary lunacy, issues a remarkable speedy admission of error:

ERROR-CORRECTION UPDATE: Reader []writes that I'm wrong, and that some of the Canons -- including the one mentioned above -- do accept AA batteries. She's right, I'm wrong. I had read the contrary somewhere a while back, and either it was always wrong, or Canon has changed. Anyway, I should have noticed. Sorry.