Come on in, the water's fine.

Andrew Sullivan is now a little worried that Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit doesn't link to enough negative stories on Iraq. At least Sullivan recognizes Glenn Reynolds can do what he wants with his own blog, but he still goes too far.

First, he claims "if you read [Reynolds], you wouldn't be able to understand why there is even a debate about the management of the war in Iraq." This is nonsense. Instapundit might link mostly to pro-Iraq stuff, but usually within the context of the huge debate going on. If you read everything Glenn Reynolds links to (though I don't know how anyone could, even Reynolds), you would get a very clear idea what critics of the war are saying, even if you didn't agree.

Second, Sullivan complains his arguments against the war have lost him thousands of readers. Am I supposed to be impressed? Sell some more ads if you need the money. Take another month off while your readers send in contributions. I don't care. I'm more interested in the quality of your arguments, not the supposed bravery you show in making them.

Third, Sullivan claims "I cannot see I have much of a choice. Bush's failures are so glaring you have to put blinders on to ignore them."

Mr. Sullivan, there are a lot of different views of the war. Many are dead-set against everything about it. Others (like you) think it's a good idea that's gone horribly awry. Then there are those (like me and perhaps Glenn Reynolds) who favored it and think things are still moving in the right direction, even if there are significant problems to deal with. Just because you've gone off the deep end, Andrew, is no reason for everyone else to jump off the cliff.