Mikey Kaus--doing what he does best--gently prods uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan: 

As the prof would say: Heh.
As good enough an excuse as any to talk about Sullivan:
For those coming to the game late, I first encountered Andrew not long after 9/11. They say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and in those early days after the attack Andrew was one of a group of liberals who freely admitted they'd "mugged" by 9/11. I have to say that much of what he said was instrumental in convincing me, at the time, of the rightness of the War and its justifications. Here's a taste:
In the Journal on Oct. 4, 2001:

One of the overlooked aspects of the war we are now fighting is the awakening it has spawned on the left. One atrocity, Osama bin Laden may have accomplished what a generation of conservative writers have failed to do: convince mainstream liberals of the illogic and nihilism of the powerful postmodern left. For the first time in a very long while, many liberals are reassessing--quietly for the most part--their alliance with the anti-American, anticapitalist forces they have long appeased, ignored or supported.

But Sullivan admitted, scarcely six months later that he was wrong:

Some Democrats are simply uncomfortable about America having a strong and unapologetic role in the world. This isn't treason; it's weakness. And weakness in the dangerous world we face is an invitation for more terror. Be warned.

In March, 2003, Andrew was still singing the President's praises:

Rather than simply forestall crises, postpone them, avoid them or fob them off onto others, Bush is actually doing the hard thing. He's calling for real democracy in the Middle East. He's aiming to make the long-standing U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq a reality. He actually wants to defeat Islamist terrorism, rather than make excuses for tolerating its cancerous growth.

Also in March 2003:

I respect a good opposition raising important, concrete questions about tactics and strategy in a war. But I suspect whiners who are angling for political advantage at the possible expense of this country's security, and our troops' safety.

In July 2003, Andrew detected

... an under-current of complete gloom in news reports that seems to me to be more fueled by ideological fervor than sober analysis. Given the magnitude and complexity of the task of rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq, it seems to me we're making slow but decent progress. The lack of a complete social implosion or exploding civil war is itself a huge achievement. And no one said the post-war reconstruction was going to be easy.
So what's behind this drumbeat of apocalypse? I think it's a good rule among boomer journalists that every story they ever edit or write or film about warfare will at some point be squeezed into a Vietnam prism.

But long about the late summer of 2004 (I'd actually noticed him "going wobbly" way back in the Spring of that year, but it became much more noticable at this point), something happened to Andrew. It was almost as though, like in a bad Star Trek episode, some alien had taken over his brain. Many who'd been reading him daily noted that the real change took place after he went away on vacation. The speculation was that during his annual retreat to "the hammock" with "the boyfriend," he got a rather stern talking to (read: a thorough programming--or deprogramming, depending on your point of view) by any number of his peers. Finding a Log Cabin Republican in the Hamptons in July must be quite a chore.

By the time of the presidential debates of that year, Andrew had become a reliable Kerry apologist, even defending the reprehensible use of Cheney's lesbian daughter as a debate point. These days Sullivan, apparently still guilt-wracked over his support of the war, bashes the Bush adminstration as hard as he wants supported them. Abu Grahib was particularly rough for Andrew, and I suspect there was some unpleasant truth in the comments of detractors who suggested that Andrew was dealing with some conflicting feelings about the images that caused the scandal. Nuff said.

The result is that only recent arrivals to Sullivan's site (all Bush-haters) enjoy him. Longtime readers of all stripes despise him: Longtime war opponents cannot forgive his early support, longtime war supports cannot forgive his more recent transformation into useful idiot.

Update: Andrew has once again embarrassed himself in the Foley matter, demonstrating, again, what a one-issue pundit he has become. To Andrew, the Foley mess is all about the closet.
James Taranto sagely notes: