Andrew Sullivan used to be an interesting commentator.  Long ago, he looked at both sides of the issues and provided intelligent insights.  Now he's a one-trick pony: a gay liberal masquerading as a conservative.  Mainly, he's obsessed with torture, a topic about which he has become the Liza Minelli of the internet (see Forbidden Broadway for the reference).  Today alone, he has four posts dealing with torture either in whole or in passing. 

His typical argument about torture of terrorists is that it somehow decays the moral fabric of our nation.  This, as I explained in a 2007 column, is largely nonsense:

Sullivan is perhaps the leading proponent of a blanket ban on torture of terrorist detainees. In an article he wrote for The New Republic back in December 2005, he elucidates his position. "Torture is the polar opposite of freedom," he states. To this platitude he adds that the development of Western civilization is a progression from torture to freedom; that if we turn our enemies into monsters to justify torturing them, we will dramatically increase the amount of torture we inflict generally; that we blur the line between our own values and those of the terrorists we fight and, in doing so, alienate potential allies in the Muslim world.

... No one doubts that arbitrary torture is wrong. Were we to pull random American citizens from their homes and drag them into a cell for a bit of waterboarding, we would undoubtedly be destroying our own moral fiber and discrediting our history. We would be no better than the Islamists we fight. But there is a fundamental difference between our treatment of non-citizens and our treatment of citizens. There is a fundamental difference between how we treat our friends and how we treat our enemies.

What distinguishes us from our enemies is not how we treat our enemies, but what we fight to ensure for our friends. We seek to make the world a freer place, a safer place. We fight against the jackboots arriving in the night to steal away religious or political minorities. Our enemies seek to destroy us, and our way of life. They fight for the rape rooms, for the public beheadings, for the murder of religious and political minorities. They seek to make torture the rule, not the exception.

Western civilization, and American civilization in particular, is based on opposition to torture. But Western civilization has never been based on the idea that we must treat enemies of Western civilization with the same care we treat allies.  Outsiders are not members of the social pact that guarantees them the rights insiders enjoy.

This does not mean we should treat all outsiders as terrorists. We should treat outsiders with civility as long as they do not threaten our civilization — this in and of itself distinguishes us from our enemies. If, however, outsiders threaten our civilization, we should do what we deem necessary. If we must sometimes get our hands dirty to protect Western civilization, so be it. Western civilization is not a fragile edifice, infinitely susceptible to fruits of fascism. We will not become Nazis because we torture terrorists. We can safely fight our enemies without destroying that which makes us what we are.

What's really got Sullivan's goose lately, however, is Israel.  He clearly hates the country and its people, raving about the

suicidal and ugly nature of Israel's current government, its contempt for Obama and the US, its utter tin ear with respect to global opinion, and the far more terrifying fact that this attitude now seems to enjoy vast support among Israelis themselves. Washington needs to wake up and face down the bullies and thugs of the pro-Israel Beltway. This is not the Israel we knew.

More importantly, this is not the Israel Sullivan wants.  The Israel Sullivan wants is the one that surrenders land, opens its orders and allows itself to be destroyed demographically, and kowtows to Democratic politicians in order to burnish their credentials.  It is the Israel where the people live in fear.  It is the Israel that has no influence with its chief ally, the United States.  This critique of Israel is John Mearsheimer in disguise.

Sullivan has made his career out of posing as one thing while being another.  He is not conservative in any way; he is not religious in the traditional sense, he is not an economic conservative, he is not hawkish on foreign policy.  He's free to take whatever stance he sees fit, of course.  But it's ridiculous for him to cling to claims of moderation when he's clearly a partisan hack.