Sully needs to come clean on all of this imo. Back in 2005, Brad DeLong wrote:

More worrisome, perhaps, is that Dan Drezner appears happy to be cited by Andrew Sullivan in support of Sullivan's claim that:

Daily Dish: ...the FT is now such an Anti-American paper, I'm beginning to wonder if its financial reporting isn't part of the bias....

What's supposed to be anti-American here? That the FT is worrying and reporting about the possibility of a dollar crash when foreign central banks find that they have to stop purchasing Treasury bonds. I have news for Andrew: if that's anti-American, every single international finance economist--including political appointees--at the U.S. Treasury, at the CEA, and at the Federal Reserve is anti-American. And the overwhelming bulk of international economists worldwide. And me.

I half understand Sullivan's position. Since he's converted to Paul Krugman's view of Bush administration fiscal policy, of the competence of Bush's neoconservative national security advisers, of torture, and of the moral standing of the Bush administration in general, he would look like a real idiot if he continued his Krugman-bashing campaign. So he needs to pick another target.

Dan Drezner, however, needs to rethink. It does him no good at all to be cited in support of the positions that the FT is an anti-American newspaper, or that worries about the possibility of a dollar crash are anti-American propaganda. That's not the reputation he needs.

(Emphasis supplied.) And that is the reputation Sullivan deserves. I am not sure he has it. I am intent on him having it. I'll be here to remind those who would like to conveniently forget what Sullivan wrote during the Bush years.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only