Proportion

Will Marshall July 23, 2005: "Democrats should also bring a sense of proportion to the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay."

Will Marshall September 2007: "We should start by putting our own house in order. That means unequivocally banning torture, closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and junking the 'Cheney Doctrine,' which holds that U.S. presidents can make up their own rules for detaining, interrogating, and trying terrorist suspects without regard to domestic or international law."

Note that back two years ago when Marshall thought liberals were making too big a deal out of what he now thinks should be the next administration's top priority, he suggested that the reason liberals thought this was such a big deal was that they were unpatriotically busy "ignoring" the crimes of the insurgency in Iraq in a way that betrayed "an anti-American bias."

Comments

That's the bullshit moose for you.

Posted by Pritesh | September 12, 2007 11:19 AM

Who can't unshit his own bed either.

Posted by al-Anon | September 12, 2007 11:21 AM

Will Marshall can kiss my Yankee ass. He's offering the vast majority of Democrats a deal in order to maintain what of his power in the party remains. We might have to accept HRC, but we don't have to accept him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 12, 2007 11:22 AM

The bullshit moose is Marshall Wittmann, not Will Marshall.

Posted by Anthony Cartouche | September 12, 2007 11:27 AM

f that guy

Posted by cleek | September 12, 2007 11:27 AM

Bullshit Moose and Squirrel then.

Posted by Mudge | September 12, 2007 11:34 AM

always a day late and a dollar short.

Posted by r€nato | September 12, 2007 11:35 AM

it still amazes me that so many quasi-public figures haven't yet realized that it's very easy to look up their past words....

Posted by howard | September 12, 2007 11:35 AM

Amen Howard.

Posted by bajsa | September 12, 2007 11:38 AM

So has he admitted that he was wrong and apologized for slandering the patriotism of those of us who thought (and continue to think) that torturing anyone is both heinously immoral and horribly un-American - no matter what crimes the insurgency or the Taliban or al Qaeda or any other group happen to commit?

Or has he just changed his rhetoric without admitting that he was ever on the wrong side of this issue?

I have some level of respect for folks who fall into camp #1 - or I would if I could find any examples of them in existence. People in camp #2 are just cowards and don't deserve respect. I'm glad they're advocating for the right side finally, but the level of intellectual dishonesty sickens me.

Posted by NonyNony | September 12, 2007 11:48 AM

a principled liar...typical of the DLC/Democratic warhawks. where have you gone Zell Miller ? Our nation turns its hopeful eyes on you and joltin' Joe Liebercrap.

Posted by della Rovere | September 12, 2007 11:51 AM

We will probably see a lot of conservative pundits backtracking in the next 15 months. Unrestricted executive authority is crucial under Bush but not so desirable under H.R. Clinton.

By June 2008, I think we will see a major reversal on domestic spying, detention and habeus corpus. By December 2008, the republicans in the Congress will be calling for massively increased oversight of the executive branch.

Posted by cj_n_pa | September 12, 2007 11:52 AM

You neglected to point out a few important points:

1) Will Marshall is very serious.

2) If you look up the word "serious" in the dictionary, you'll see two drawings. The second one is Will Marshall. (The first is Bullwinkle.)

3) Will Marshall exudes seriousness.

4) I know this guy, who knows this guy, who knows this caveman, who knows this president, who knows this vice president, who swears that Will Marshall is extremely serious.

5) When Will Marshall farts, the aroma has a very serious stench to it.

6) The Great Thinker? That's Will Marshall's father.

7) Right before Will Marshall goes to bed every night, he looks in the mirror and proclaims, "Man, I am one serious mudda fucka!"

8) When Will Marshall gets out of bed every morning, he yells at the top of his lungs, "It's gonna be a Serious Golden Graham Day!"

And all of these serious points must be taken seriously by anyone who wants to be seen as ... serious. Seriously.

Posted by Gramma Millie | September 12, 2007 11:54 AM

look, there's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about his position.

in the first, he was talking about a republican regime that was actually in office. in the second, he's imagining a democratic team coming into office.

so it's simple:

he's saying we should be unflinchingly, brutally honest about our failings and short-comings *if we're criticizing democrats*.

and he's saying we should be polite, deferential, and proportioned *if we're criticizing republicans*.

makes perfect sense. what do you expect from a dlc'er?

Posted by kid bitzer | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM

"That's the bullshit moose for you."

Yes, Marshall Wittmann, a vile Likudnik Liebercrat who refers to himself in the third person venison, is very easy to confuse with Will Marshall, PNAC signator and DLC professional self-hater.

Both are entirely irrelevant to the future of this nation.

Posted by HeavyJ | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM

re: Howard's point - to be perfectly honest, I doubt that people like this even keep track of what comes out of their mouths at all. He doesn't say what he says out of belief or conviction, he just says whatever he thinks will sound good to the daddys he is looking to suck up to...

Posted by onceler | September 12, 2007 12:51 PM

Will Marshall - when it comes to human rights, he's a summer soldier.

Playin' politics with torture -- disgraceful

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 12, 2007 12:53 PM

So what does Marshall suggest; try them under civil courts or by military courtmartial.

Posted by narciso | September 12, 2007 1:18 PM

Mudge,

"Bullshit moose and squirrel." Kudos.

Man, I wish I had said that. Thank god I had already finished my coffee.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 12, 2007 2:22 PM

Wait... what's my reaction supposed to be? Guy made dumb statements two years ago, he's been brought 'round to where he ought to be now. I don't get why he needs to be singled out for opprobrium.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 12, 2007 2:24 PM

anthony, if that were the only dumb thing he ever said, and if he brought himself to acknowledge the level of dumbness, that would be one thing.

but this takes us to onceler's worthy response to my earlier comment: i agree that there are a lot of people in washington whose job is to produce a certain type of sound bite, which means a lot of default pablum.

but of course even default pablum evolves over time.

so yes anthony, the odds that marshall is a really pricipled guy who, two years on, has thought long and hard about exactly what kind of person makes that kind of stupid kneejerk comment just to reinforce the convention wisdom of elite cocktail party chatter, are pretty slim.

and yes, onceler, he probably could care less that people can compare and contrast: we're not marshall's audience....

Posted by howard | September 12, 2007 2:36 PM

Well, better late than never -- especially when you consider the number of loudmouths who are still firmly in the "Never" camp on these issues.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | September 12, 2007 6:16 PM

If in the future this jerk is appointed to something by some democratic president it will up to us to create the shit storm to stop it. I love the smell of purge in the morning.

Posted by syvanen | September 12, 2007 7:56 PM

Here was the full paragraph from Marshall's quote from two years ago:

"Democrats should also bring a sense of proportion to the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. These sickening deviations from America's core principles have damaged our country's moral reputation around the world. True patriotism demands not denials and whitewashes, but a thorough, independent investigation, punishment of those responsible, and clear policies to prevent a repetition."

Posted by Gordon | September 12, 2007 8:09 PM

Yes, and here's the following paragraph:

"Yet the revelation that some U.S. troops aren't saints should not come as too great a shock, at least to grownups. By dwelling obsessively on U.S. misdeeds while ignoring the far more heinous crimes of what is quite possibly the most barbaric insurgency in modern times, anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility. "

Posted by The Navigator | September 12, 2007 10:14 PM