Andrew Sullivan Is Going To Scream Bloody Murder

Recently, Oxford-educated Andrew Sullivan attempted to make the case that President Lincoln was gay:

But was Lincoln? Here's what I'd say are the most persuasive facts. Lincoln never developed deep emotional relations with any women, including his wife. Even the few snippets we have of early romances or his deeply strained courtship of Mary Todd suggest a painful attempt to live up to social norms, not a regular heterosexual life. His marriage was a disaster, by all accounts. Why? Well, ask Brookhiser, who tries to exonerate Todd from charges of being cruel and psychopathic as well as corrupt: "Explosive, imperious, profligate, she may well have been mad. But in fairness to her, Lincoln was maddening--remote and unavailable, when he was not physically absent." Hmmm. Remote, emotionally unavailable, running away to hang with men whenever he could. Ring a bell? Not in Brookhiser's mind.

Or take this wonderful passage about one of Lincoln's early crushes, Billy Greene, who subsequently remarked that Lincoln's "thighs were as perfect as a human being could be." Brookhiser remarks: "Everyone saw that Lincoln was tall and strong, but this seems rather gushing." Gushing? I'd say. When you also realize that a common form of gay sex back then was -------[edited-you must google up Andrew Sullivan + Lincoln was gay to read what Sullivan is describing if you don't have a TNR subscription]------, you might get a slightly different idea of what Lincoln's intimate was talking about. And, yes, they slept together--in a cot-bed. Remember that Lincoln was well over 6 feet tall. It was a tight fit. As Greene said himself, "when one turned over the other had to do likewise." So just picture the actual scene: two young men inseparable each night in bed. Gay? Whatever would give you that idea?

Well guess what? Lawrence Wright has now made the case that Mohammed Atta and his buddies were, well, Wright doesn't come out and say it but read bewteen the lines yourself:

Wright, who once taught at the American University in Cairo, has spent almost five years interviewing 600 principles -- more than half of them Muslims -- in pulling together his dramatic narrative. He carries the story all the way from the 1940s visit to America by Sayyid Qutb -- the prissy Egyptian exchange student who became the spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood -- to the frantic efforts of FBI antiterrorist John O'Neill trying to uncover the plot before being cashiered out of the Bureau and moving over to be head of security at the World Trade Center -- where he perished three weeks later.

What emerges from The Looming Tower is that we are not facing a clash of civilizations so much as a conflict with an educated segment of a civilization that produces some very weird, sexually disoriented men. Poverty has nothing to do with it. It is stunning to meet the al Qaeda roster -- one highly accomplished scholar after another with advanced degrees in chemistry, biology, medicine, engineering, a large percentage of them educated in the United States...

...Physically, there was a feminine quality to his bearing [Atta]: He was "elegant" and "delicate," so that his sexual orientation -- however unexpressed -- was difficult to read. . . Atta constantly demonstrated an aversion to women, who in his mind were like Jews in their powerfulness and corruption. [His] will states: "No pregnant woman or disbelievers should walk in my funeral or ever visit my grave. No woman should ask forgiveness of me. Those who will wash my body should wear gloves so that they do not touch my genitals." The anger that this statement directs at women and its horror of sexual contact invites the thought that Atta's turn to terror had as much to do with his own conflicted sexuality as it did with the clash of civilizations.

Mrs. P

Comments

[MCNS]

The caption under the pic of Andrew Sullivan at his site http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

"Illustration for TIME by Terry Colon."

Just struck me as amusing, is all.

[Mrs. Peperium]

More than amusing. Really comical verging on the-rolling-on-the-floor-hysterical if you treat it in the same fashion Sullivan treats Brookhiser in his article. By the way, does this mean we should add plumbing alongide of art and architecture to the types of posts you enjoy? I'm sure Basil could do a whopping plumbing post...

[Andrew Cusack]

Does that mean that when I praise the great and noble John Wilkes Booth, I'm being a homophobe?

[Mrs. Peperium]

Wait. Did I just hear a bell go off signaling the begining of Round II? Okay...gloves are on...laced up..hands are up...protecting my face... I'm ready to spar. Why, oh, why Mr. Cusack is John Wilkes Booth noble and great?
(Your answer will determine your homophobe status -it's looking pretty good from where I'm standing - as well as if your name is Mudd)

While you're answering this one could you also tell us the identity of the fellow behind The Panero in the wedding photo Basil Seal has posted over at his blog.

[Fiendish]

Mrs. P, you may want to think twice in the future before initiating "Scream Bloody Murder" as a blog topic. Maybe even thrice.

[Mrs. Peperium]

By the way, if this is the start of Round II, my condolences to Messrs. Elk, Seal, Llama and Lout. Tomorrow was supposed to the first installment of Tales From the Garret. Arguing about the Confederacy will be so much more bracing and edifying anyway...

[Mrs. Peperium]

Fiendish, why? Is that not done or because the feds pick up on such things? Once they see Andrew Sullivan's name connected to it, they'll understand. He's known for his hissy fits.

[Fiendish]

I was not referring at all to Andrew Sullivan. I was thinking of the Pandora's box you have now opened with the other Andrew. I am not 100% convinced that the patiently waiting Roman Catholic Boys for Art would really have gotten any actual Tales From the Garret, even if the other Andrew had not thrown down what he must regard as the tyranicide gauntlet. (Not to be confused with the so-called "tyranicide" in 1649, as described in a loathsome book which I brought to Mr. P's attention the other day.)

[Andrew Cusack]

Lincoln, like Henry VIII, was a rebel from above.

Booth is our Stauffenberg! Or more properly, he is our Brutus, since his attempt at tyrannicide was successful. Sadly, Lincoln's death came far too late to save the Republic and the Constitution, nor did it prevent the tyrannies of Reconstruction, but (like Stauffenberg) at least someone put in a good effort.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Mr. Cusack, as our RCIA priest instructed and Charles Coloumbe reminded, the end never justifys the means. Booth was an assassin. He may have been the greatest patriot Virginia ever had, but when he murdered Lincoln, he cast his lot with the lowest of the low. So did all of his fellow conspirators.

Also, one should keep in mind that if the United States had been a Catholic country, Mr. Booth because of both his, and his parent's chosen profession, would have been ex-communicated from the Church...

Noble my... Now on to nudes.

[Andrew Cusack]

So you would condemn Stauffenberg as well?

[Mrs. Peperium]

Condemn is not the right word. Also I think it's an apples to oranges argument, Someone like Old Dominion could probably argue better what I'm about, but since he's not you must work your brains very hard to understand what I am attempting to say. 1. Our country has a civilian-led military for federal purposes to end local disputes like slavery. 2. I don't think the German military was the same - it was more aristocracy-led but there probably is a proper name for what it actually was. 3. Stauffenberg's plot , I think, could be loosely understood as a military coup. A faction of the military who assented to Hitler in his early days, over the years found the real Hitler to be morally repugnant -yes that is an understatement- and they got together to off him. The truth about Hitler was there in the early days for those who wanted to see it. These men did go along with him. Terribly sad for them considering theirs and their families true nobleness to the service of Germany with the exception of WWI - those bozos... Stauffenberg was the guy who carried the bomb but many more were in on it. What their plans for Germany after Hitler's death is where the greatest divide is between Stauffenberg and Booth. Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators would have taken control of Germany, ended the final solution then some. What were Booth's plans?

How the Church views Stauffenberg's actions are for a more intelligent person than I. No matter what, he attempted to end lives by placing a bomb under a table - granted with far more mitigating circumstances than Booth ever had - but a murderer is a murderer. A murderer needs reconcilliation... A soldier is under orders to kill the enemy. That is not murder, that is self-defense. Stauffenberg was not ordered to kill Hitler.

[Andrew Cusack]

Perhaps you have a point, Mrs. P. Perhaps. I nonetheless believe a Catholic argument can still be made for tyrannicide, though I'm not entirely sure what that argument is. Until I am further enlightened, my sympathies remain with Brutus, with Booth, and with Stauffenberg. With the traditionalists, against the innovators.

(I will concede that I am much more a deep-seated opponent of Lincoln than I a hearty supporter of Booth).

[Old Dominion Tory]

With all due respect, Mrs. Peperium, Stauffenberg is a hero--and, dare I say, an authentically Catholic one. Considering the horrors that Nazi Germany already had committed and the death and destruction that occurred in last eleven months of the war, thanks to Hitler's burning desire to take an undeserving Germany down with him, a strong arguement can be made that his attempt to kill Hitler was justified.
With all due respect, Mr. Cusack, Booth is not a hero. First, the rebellion was over (no less than Robert E. Lee accepted this); Booth's plot was, therefore, one of bloody-minded vengeance. Second, by killing Lincoln, Booth opened the door to the Radical Republicans' Reconstruction; if his Second Inaugural Address is any indication, Lincoln's probably would have been much less harsh. Third and most important, admittedly, Lincoln often took extraordinary liberties with the Constitution; however, his actions are in no way as tyrannical as Hitler's and most certainly not as evil.

[Old Dominion Tory]

Mrs. Peperium and Mr. Cusack: Please understand that I was composing my comments while you were composing and posting yours. I am not, therefore, specifically addressing the points you made in your comments.
Give me some time and I'll reengage.
Thank you for understanding.
Regards.

[Andrew Cusack]

Well, you've already changed my mind. While an action like Booth's may have been worthwhile in the years before, by the time he did it there was no point, and it served only to flare tensions and likely did more harm than good. He was a Fawkes, then, not a Staffenberg.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Just because Stauffenberg may have cast himself into outer darkness by offing Hitler does not mean I don't view him as heroic. I do. Germany after WWI was a shambles, mentally. Mr. P (I believe I am recalling this correctly) blames largely the Treaty of Versailles for WWII. Mr. P is also almost 75% German. In the early days Hitler strongly appealed to people's nationalistic pride and sense of patriotism. Stauffenberg unfortunately fell for it. Sad, really. Who knows what we ourselves would have done...

[MCNS]

Lord, what next? Odes to Leon Czolgosz as a champion of The Lost Cause, or John Hinckley as a tribune of state's rahts?