What always seems to escape people who hate the fact that Israel is defending itself, is that Israel didn't blockade Gaza until after the rockets started firing.

-- EngineerBill

I'm pretty sure that this point has never been brought up before, to Glenn or otherwise in the context of this debate. I think it's great that you came here and provided it. Now, Glenn can clean up all of his posts on the topic of Israel/Palestine, since he has finally been provided this gem of understanding about the conflict.

This is not to mention the strawman of "people who hate the fact that Israel is defending itself" or the crazy "once Hamas is out of the picture, a true peace can happen." Seriously?

I wonder why it is that discussions of Israel always melt down to this level. I should know the answer, but I really don't get it.

teh Jihad Juggernaut!!!1!

...pushing a nuclear nation "into the sea" with crude rockets and "leftist bloggers." Y'all should be ashamed. Boxcars.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

With that one post, we could erase hundreds of posts from the last week. That's pretty much the entire argument in a nutshell.

Nice work.

I'm sure that Sh**ter has a better solution.

-- Arne Langsetmo

Well, he did advocate for a "final solution" for Palestinians the other day.

Pretty rich, huh? One day, advocating for genocide. Another day, opining on other's lack of nobility. All wrapped up in a lecture on hypocrisy.

He's bats**t crazy. That's all there is to it.

These tactics are as transparent as they are discredited. If you have to lie about what other people are arguing in order to refute it, that's a pretty good sign that you have nothing worthwhile to say.

-- GlennGreenwald

Don't forget WinSmith's new fabrication of what "everyone who comments here thinks" (as if he could even know that). He has decided that everyone who claims to be concerned about the welfare of Palestinians is full of crap and doesn't really care about them. It conveniently feeds his persecution complex (everyone is so out to get Israel that they would pretend to care about the death of innocents to further that end), but is completely without basis in reality. He just created it out of whole cloth -- this claim that all of these people are straight up lying -- in order to further his argument. Which is ironic since it's a lie. In addition, I find it completely offensive to have some stranger strutting around telling me what I think and feel. This guy has some nerve.

I also found it hilarious that he claims that you can't be unbiased in your reporting because you want to treat Israel "like every other country." I'm not sure it gets more bassackwards than that.

What is it about the discussion of Israel that makes people completely unable to be rational?

WinSmith: "Glenn, you are just like Bill O'Reilly."

Glenn: "Actually, you and Bill O'Reilly have been making identical arguments on this issue."

WinSmith: "I can't believe you accused me of being just like Bill O'Reilly. That is smear by association, and it's wrong."

WTF?

Over use of stimulants can lead to mania.

-- omooex

Word.

WinSmith's posts remind me of this quote from the movie Billy Madison: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

The biggest cheers seemed to come from this passage:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

He didn't spend enough time on this topic, and he wasn't specific enough, but the crowd reaction was telling.

And, he can choose to argue that somehow, this thread, on this day, should be an Obama-free-of-criticism zone.

-- bystander

Kitt never argued anything of the kind.

Kitt can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what he was upset about was the idea that becoming emotional over the inauguration = wearing rose colored glasses. In other words, just because he enjoyed the moment doesn't mean that he's giving Obama a free pass.

There seems to be a false dichotomy here. But, a person could both enjoy the moment today and retain skepticism over Obama. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Kitt, I apologize in advance if I've in any misinterpreted you.

Please tell me what the "M" stands for.

Do I have to watch that Fritz Lang movie to get a clue?

-- something stinks

I thought it was "Messiah of the US," used as a derogatory term, of course. But, I could be wrong.

...about Ms. McArdle is that I can easily name 10 regular commenters here who would be better and more interesting bloggers for The Atlantic than she is.