« How To Tell | Main | It's Called Public Service for a Reason »

August 05, 2006


MissBirdlegs in AL



Sir - it is better to give them what they want - 70 virgins was the last count, right? I hope they enjoy them in the ever after. Oh, and I did not mind sending them there, Sir.



War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning
By Chris Hedges

"Nationalist triumphalism was shunned and discredited in America after the Vietnam War. We were forced to see ourselves as others saw us, and it was not always pleasant. We understood, at least for a moment, the lie.

"But the plague of nationalism was resurrected during the Reagan years. It became ascendant with the Persian Gulf War, when we embraced the mythic and unachievable goal of a 'New World Order.'

"The infection of nationalism now lies unchecked and blindly accepted in the march we make as a nation towards another war, one as ill conceived as the war we lost in Southeast Asia."


A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam
By Neil Sheehan

"By the second decade after World War II, the dominant characteristics of the senior leadership of the American armed forces had become professional arrogance, lack of imagination, and moral and intellectual insensitivity. These are the kinds of traits that cause otherwise intelligent men to behave stupidly. The attributes were the symptoms of an institutional illness that might most appropriately be called the disease of victory

"The attitudes had spread as well to the greater part of the political, academic and business leadership of the United States. ... American society had become a victim of its own achievement. The elite of America had become stupefied by too much money, too many material resources, too much power and too much success."



MOYERS: Does the inevitability of civilian casualties make this war illegitimate?

HEDGES: Well, I think the war is illegitimate not because civilians will die. Civilians die in every conflict. It's illegitimate because the administration has not, to my mind, provided any evidence of any credible threat. And we can't go to war just because we think somebody might do something eventually.

There has to be hard intelligence. There has to be a real threat if we're going to ask our young men and women to die.

Hedges is a reporter for the New York Times.

And just to give one small example of how wrong Hedges can be, from Wikipedia:

In a January 27, 2003 report to the U.N., chief inspector Hans Blix, while noting Iraqi cooperation with regards to prompt access to inspection sites, stated "...Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." The reasons for this include a failure to account for quantities of VX nerve agent and anthrax and also the inability of the U.N. to interview Iraqi scientists outside the country.[42] Hans Blix was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and in dismissing Bush Administration spin in the run-up to the invasion, famously compared the selling of the war to the marketing of fudge.

Note that Blix was "strongly opposed" to Iraq. And apparently you haven't been following the document translation effort regarding the links to Al Queda that Saddam had. You could try this article from the Weekly Standard that notes that the New York Times waited two weeks before they even acknowledged their discovery.

Not surprising.

And your boy Sheehan?

As a reporter for The New York Times in 1971, Sheehan obtained the classified Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg. His series in the Times revealed a secret U.S. Department of Defense history of the Vietnam War and resulted in government attempts to halt publication. This expose would earn The New York Times a Pulitzer Prize.

Wow. Also a reporter for the New York Times. Also involved with exposing the security of the United States.

How coincidental is that?

So your quotes, however holier-than-thou they are meant to be, are from two New York Times reporters. Two people working for a news organization that hates the Bush administration as much as Cindy Sheehan are supposed to add moral clarity to Diggs post:

So how morally depraved does one have to be to openly support a group of terrorists that would turn around and behead you on video; but only after they had made you watch as they slaughtered your children?

And your answers, as though it relates, are a few quotes from two New York Times far left morons.

Maybe you could watch this and realize how significant people like Diggs are.


The Pentagon Papers didn't "expose the security of the United States." And Blix wasn't "strongly opposed to Iraq," he was "strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq."

What is it about you people that makes you willing to tell lie after lie after lie?

And by the way, no one does more beheading than Saudi Arabia. The Saudis beheaded 47 people in 2002, 53 in 2003, 36 in 2004 and 90 in 2005. I'm sure you'd approve of beheading for things like sodomy, but the Saudis also behead people who leave the Islamic religion.


Your Liar-in-Chief doesn't object, and neither do you. Therefore, your wailing and moaning about those video taped beheadings is merely a propaganda device. You couldn't possibly care less about the truth, or about principles. You are indifferent to suffering and loss of life, including the lives of the 2,500+ U.S. military personnel sacrificed for your Fuhrer's lies, and the 8,000+ seriously wounded.

You're a Bush robot, an empty vessel, a liar and a joke.


Incidentally, the Saudis behead rapists. If those Army personnel are convicted of raping and murdering the Iraqi girl and killing her family, shall we send the soldiers to Saudi Arabia to be beheaded? We could call it a "rendition," right?

Surely if Saudi Arabia is our friend, neither tblubird nor anyone else here among the far-right-wing would have any objections to that!


Checking out your comments, seems like this 'WW' fellah doesn't like you...bummer. js


Nothing personal, I assure everyone.


reductio ad Hitlerum...Goodwin's Law...I was wondering how long it'd take WW to start with that crap.


MKL, stop lying. I never called anyone a Nazi. Now, to something of substance:

Israel Cries "Uncle"

Make no mistake about it, that's what they've done by accepting the UN ceasefire proposal. They've telegraphed their willingness to call it off without achieving any of their goals. They won't get their people back, they won't disarm Hezbollah, and they've destroyed their reputation as "the world's most humane army."

Not only that, but Israel is now at the mercy of Lebanon's non-government AND Hezbollah, which will be left calling the shots there. I give credit to Israel for one thing: Unlike the Idiot Liar-in-Chief, at least they know it can only get worse from here so they need to cut their losses.


MissBirdlegs in AL

WW says "nothing personal, I assure you". WW, since this is Diggs' personal blog, why in the heck do you insist on commenting if it's not personal? Nobody here gives a flip about what you have to say. We've read the same things you have and discarded them as garbage. You're nothing but a PIA and should stay on your own blog where folks think exactly as you do. Sorry, Diggs, but I'm feeling a tad cranky today.


If no one cares, they sure have a funny way of showing it. If someone posts a political blog that's a public act, and I'm a member of the public. Of course, Diggs could always do what most of the so-called milblogs do and take the coward's way out, i.e., ban me.


It seems obvious to me that calling people "liars" rather than talk of substance is missing you, WW. It's how most of the liberal left paints anything not in their camp - lies. It always puts the onus on the accused to show they are not.

Sorry - that won't happen. You apparently are more interested in dodging the issue while acting like some omnipotent preacher attempting to debunk anything diggs says. Or anyone else who may agree with him. And then spend your time suggesting what people are and what they might do to you.

I don't think diggs has any plans on "banning" you - that happens quite frequently on kos kids and DU - but unless you can come up with more than "Saudi beheads people" as as response (the only factual thing you were correct on), no one will be paying much attention. Except to grin.

Agnieszka O.

I feel cranky today too...WW is known to go around the blogs all day long and posting his views. There are hardly comments - that just his views and they are always following the same pattern. Of course he is free to do it. However, he is confusing exchange of ideas with insults. It’s kind of sad actually. I suggested few times already for him to start his own blog. It's just better to ignore him – and many times he will post comment to his own comment.


More ad hominem attacks from people who have nothing of substance to say, and who are deeply offended by my ability to give it right back to you. Your Liar-in-Chief has lied at every turn about the war, and you people do nothing but raise your right arms at 45-degree angles, click your heels and scream, Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!

Agnieszka O.

And another insult from a tolerant left.
Considering that half of my family was killed by Nazis - really, really nice...


If half your family was killed by Nazis -- look, it's the Internet and anyone can say anything -- then you should know better than to blindly follow a lying scumbag like George W. Bush.


reductio ad Hitlerum...that's always the last bastion of the Left. If WW truly believed the crap he spews about the new Hitler, then he would be afraid to post anything because all takes is for Diggs, a Soldaten of the Fourth Reich to report his IP address to the Gestapo and off to the concentration camp for WW...yawn...

And of course, WW won't never take action to stop the new Hitler, he'll resign himself to posting on blogs. If things are so bad WW, then do something besides whining. It's funny how Lefties like to throw the word "chickenhawk" around, but never do anything themselves except bitch. Strike WW, strike. For America's sake, for the world's sake, strike...


MKL, why the need to lie about what I've written? I haven't written anything about "the New Hitler." Is lying just so baked into your bones that you have to do it no matter what?


Here's 2 quotes from this thread WW

you people do nothing but raise your right arms at 45-degree angles, click your heels and scream, Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!

You are indifferent to suffering and loss of life, including the lives of the 2,500+ U.S. military personnel sacrificed for your Fuhrer's lies, and the 8,000+ seriously wounded.

I'm sorry was there another Fuhrer you were referring to? It's pretty easy to see the analogy you make when you throw those terms out there. Do you read what you write or are you copying and pasting someone else's comments from another site?


Hey WW, looks like your relentless internet trolling of military bloggers has gotten some notice elsewhere:


Good job. You're becoming quite well-known for your ridiculous, non sequitur, ad hominem posting.




Do you read what you write or are you copying and pasting someone else's comments from another site?

I think Wee Willy Winkle gets his talking points from the "Moonbat Handbook".
If I'm not mistaken Chapter 6 "You say Tomfoolery-I say Tinfoilry" clearly states: When discussing the President in the comments section of a blog one must use phrases such as "Liar-in-Chief", "lying scumbag like George W. Bush" and "Idiot Liar-in-Chief". Comparing Bush supporters to Nazi's and blind idiots who clearly cannot think for themselves is strongly encouraged. example: "Your Liar-in-Chief has lied at every turn about the war, and you people do nothing but raise your right arms at 45-degree angles, click your heels and scream, Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!"

WW,you need a hobby. Maybe you can get all your buddies to donate their hats and you could make the worlds largest tinfoil ball.

Gotta run. All my brown shirts need ironing.


Here's an update on Willliam Wilson's antics over at the OpFor blog:


I used to wonder why he doesn't just get a blog of his own, but the answer is really obvious. Who would bother to click on such a blog? He knows that he would simply be ignored. So the only way to get the attention he so desperately craves is to romp from MilBlog to MilBolg, constantly cluttering up the comments sections with his standard, generic (as RJ so nicely points out) moonbattery.

I guess everbody needs a hobby, and William has found his.



And here's Blackfive's comments on why, after tolerating WW's nuttiness for years, he felt he finally had no choice but to ban him:


WW has an interesting definition of "free speech." To him, it means he has a right to walk uninvited into your living room and start talking about whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. The minute you tell him to shut up or try to throw him out, you are a "hypocrit" who only wants to "quash free speech."


The comments to this entry are closed.