Even by the heady standards of Comment is Free, this is something of a record.

As readers may be aware, there is a campaign going on at the moment to try and secure the right of asylum for Iraqis who have worked with British forces since the invasion, mostly as translators but also in other capacities. The campaign has been tirelessly promoted by Dan Hardie, and eloquently supported by the likes of Harry's Place, Chicken Yoghurt, Rachel North and Tim Worstall to name just a handful. With attention now being paid by the mainstream press, the government's foot-dragging is beginning to anger more and more people. (For more on this campaign, see here.)

Well anyway. Neil Clark, the blogger, genocide denier and defender of Milosevic for whom I have started to run out of adjectives, has an article up on CiF today labelling these Iraqis "Quislings" because they have chosen to "collaborate with - oops, sorry, work for" the British, and commenting that they can hardly complain if other Iraqis feel "ill-disposed" towards them (what a soaringly brilliant euphemism). (Hilariously, Clark also believes the blog campaign to be a creation of "pro-war bloggers", which will be a surprise to Justin and Tim among others.)

In a subsequent comment below the post (more about the comments thread in a moment) Clark writes that "it's an intellectual cop out to say that we oppose the war, but that we hope Britain and America are successful.". Now, I'm tempted to go into the reasons which I think that this sentence succinctly demonstrates the degeneracy of the line of thinking espoused by Clark and his ilk; why I think that the correct role for those on the left who opposed the war is now to stand in solidarity with ordinary Iraqis in their attempt to rebuild their country. However, I will not delve into the rights and wrongs of the Iraq mess or our role in creating it, precisely because this issue is one that unites both pro- and anti-war bloggers.

All I will say is this: Clark clearly believes that, having failed to stop an illegal war (as he sees it), watching Iraq and its citizens burn is now the best outcome on offer to those on the left who opposed the invasion. In his world, anything that benefits Britain and America is to be opposed - even if that 'anything' is peace, stability and security for ordinary Iraqis. Anything which derails Western ambitions is to be welcomed, conversely, even when it includes suicide-murder and beheadings. So much for that solidarity of his. As for the Iraqi 'collaborators', they should not expect an easy ride; they had it coming, didn't they?

The majority of those on the left, and certainly in the left-wing blogosphere, utterly and rightly reject this filth as moral bankruptcy of the worst kind. We can argue till the end of time about the rights and wrongs of our invasion of Iraq, and we probably will. But to desert these translators (and others) in their time of need would, in my view, be a dereliction of duty of the first order. And, by the way, for a "pro-war blogger" to say so is not "chutzpah", or a sentiment to be derided; on the contrary, I would suggest, it is far better that those of us who supported this miserable war acknowledge that the plight of these people is our responsibility. There has been quite enough washing of hands already.

Just under three hours after it was posted, up popped an announcement from the Guardian's moderators: "Our policy is to close threads after three days. Comments have now been closed on this entry.". The sheer weight of criticism being directed at Clark for his squalid and nasty piece, from commenters of all political stripes, had simply become too much for the editorial staff to take.

It takes quite some effort to bring Comment is Free into disrepute. Neil Clark has managed it today.