Will, that was fun Posted by Moira Whelan

I don't know how this thread ended up in the defense/attack of Will Marshall, but I do thank others for their contributions. I will simply say, case closed.

In the meantime, we all missed Melon Day, so let me be the first to wish you a Happy Melon Day! And to all of you in Turkmenistan celebrating Melon Day for the first time without the Turkmenbashi

Comments

[Webster Hubble Telescope]

As everyone saw on Meet the Press yesterday, the number of actual DLC'ers number in the dozens. Who really cares about the DLC ?

[lambert strether]

Say, out of curiosity, who funds you guys?

I mean, if you're all Teh Serious, you're on some kind of tit, right?

[Shadi Hamid]

hey lambert, I wish

[Zathras]

Well that was interesting. Not read-every-post-in-the-thread interesting, mind you, just sort of noteworthy.

I mean that every blog with a comment section gets onto certain subjects that provoke a spike in the number of comments. Which subjects they are vary with the blog, but plainly on Democracy Arsenal there are a lot more people eager to comment on Democrats' remarks about one another than there are wanting to comment on most other subjects. Or on any other subject.

I have no explanations to offer, nor any interpretations -- just the observation.

[commie atheist]

This will probably be the last time I ever comment here, so feel free to ignore me, but, after having read through this series of posts and all of the commentary, what strikes me is this: Michael Cohen and Shadi Hamid are more upset by the lack of civility (I mean, name-calling? Heavens!) displayed by left-leaning bloggers and commenters than they are by the horror that is the Iraq war. As far as I'm concerned, that position deserves all the mockery and contempt that Atrios and his compatriots can muster.

[Nix]

This bit right here......
"Saddam had for 12 years thumbed his nose at the United Nations and international community; he had refused to account for his WMD programs and had consistently tried to hide from international inspectors the extent of these programs; and continued UN sanctions against Iraq were causing a real and unrequited humanitarian emergency among the Iraqi people."

Who do you think we are? FOX watchers??

5 seconds and I found this, man you guys really do suck...
"UN inspectors make first surprise visit to Saddam's palace"
(Tuesday, December 3, 2002)
"Saddam's presidential secretary, Abed Hamoud, arrived at the grounds of the palace only a couple of minutes later. On Monday, inspectors visited a missile design plant and three gin distilleries."

"UN officials say they've been able to do their work with no interference from Iraqi officials"
Form
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/12/03/iraq_palaces021203.html
PLEASE STOP!! THE STUPID IT BURNS!!!

[Kevin Lyda]

You want the "anti-war left" to hear you out and yet you have no interest in hearing those of us who opposed the Iraq war out. Worse yet as several posters have pointed out, you lack a basic knowledge of the events leading to this war.

There's one word which completely sums up your lack of understanding: accountability. It's a word you don't understand. If you did, your advice to Will Marshall and to everyone who supported the war in Iraq would be to shut up and listen for a while.

You say people who supported the war didn't know it would be run incompetently. That comment is wrong (yes, wrong) on two levels. First, Bush has a lifetime track record of incompetence. Go read up on his business disasters. Second, it assumes there was a way to invade Iraq competently. There wasn't. Dick Cheney had it right in 1994 - occupying Iraq was always going to be a disaster.

Instead, you continue to spout nonsense. And you continue to not listen. The topic is closed you say, but for 140,000+ US troops and their families, the topic is very much open. For millions of Iraqis the topic is very much open.

But for you, it's closed.

Must be nice.

[Dan Kervick]

Which subjects they are vary with the blog, but plainly on Democracy Arsenal there are a lot more people eager to comment on Democrats' remarks about one another than there are wanting to comment on most other subjects. Or on any other subject.

I don't think the spike reflects the interests of regular Democracy Abroad readers, Zathras. It reflects the interests of Atrios's readers, who were directed here by a link from his very popular site.

[Nick]

Maybe if you want a civil discourse, you can listen to your commenters. Not all of them are calling you a fuckwit. A lot of people are making those reasoned and civil arguments you were talking about. If you care to take your own advice, and read and consider these comments, you might find their reasoning to be considered, passionate, and fairly ironclad. You can do it! Don't bemoan the lack of civility in political discourse, and then immediately dsimiss this deluge of comments as entirely personal attacks. There's plenty of legitimate stuff in here. There might still be hope-- so don't be a hypocrite. Read and respond. Hopefully you'll come around and see why so many of us are so angry. We don't have to be mad at you-- I for one would much rather dispense with being angry at any Democrat. But as long as there are pro-war types who continue to try to defend their untenable stances in the face of overwhelming evidence, that's just not possible-- those people, I';m sorry to say, deserve scorn too.

In closing: REEEEAAAAD YOOOOOUUUURRR COOOMMMMEEENNNNNTTTSSS.

[Hollie Welch]

scrubgrass ismaelitish psychologian librettist epitheliosis aureateness silicoflagellidae isobilateral
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/briancalvin/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/brentpatch/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/waynefarnsworth/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/stephenziegelbauer/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/oonout/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/phoyew/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/selmalyons/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/cathybackstrom/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/charlescarrero/1.html
yes
http://www.angelfire.com/bryanehall/1.html