Dang Greyhawk,

You are fun when the wankers really get you going. The media have recognized that their artificial construct of a quagmire and defeat is under attack and they are scrambling to cover their butts.

Since W has joined the fray, I think we have a chance at the truth prevailing. His poll numbers bumped up this week also, good gravy could it be working?

Cordially,

Uncle J

By Ware's standard, the British never "lead" any battle in WWII, because Eisenhower was in charge.

By the way, check out the 500 Wilson clones in the comments at the link. "Group Think" would be a better name for that site - "Hive Mind" better yet. "Progress" is pure false advertising. The Time reporter never even said "Bush lied" - but every reader there believes he did. Do any of these people question anything they read? Scary.

Anyone with critical thinking skills abandoned the Left long ago. Those remaining are "poorly educated, easily led."

Ware has always been a punk, and Anderson Cooper has an axe to grind with Bush because of his own sexuality.

f

[deleted - offensive]

Wow, didn't take long for the Bush=Hitler crowd to show up. I kind of laugh at the Bush=Hitler stuff because if it were actually true then Bush would have initiated the “Final Solution” and all Muslims and libs would be in concentration camps by now. Oh and don’t even try to compare Gitmo to Auschwitz you wankers(no gas chambers if you haven’t noticed).

Wilson: From all of the hordes of Republicans, I wish to offer my unreserved thanks. Without wingnuts like yourself making the Democratic Party look like the official gathering place for loose-brained loudmouthed jerks, we might not have gained so many nonaligned and "small-d" Democratic votes, and making sure the Republican base was well-motivated to turn out and vote, in '02 and '04.
Thanks for making a Republican victory possible.

PS- Things look close in '06--- do you think you can ramp up your posting on sites like this one? Maybe spread youself out a little, so you can do a better job of confirming the stereotype of the Anti-Victory Wingnut Democrat to more people than before? You do it so well...

"Offensive," oh come on Greyhawk. Puhleeze. But okay, for the polite:

Gee, Fred, you didn't mention the prominent gay Republicans like David Dreier and Ken Mehlman. You didn't even mention the Faux News anchor who was recently outed, Shepherd Smith.

So, do as a good Republican do you only gay-bait the opposition? Hey, it's a long tradition with you wingnuts.

And speaking of stereotypes, maybe we could dispense with another one about Republicans:

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

You post a civil thoughful article which at the very least could serve as a point of departure for some useful 'discussion' and you get Wilson instead.

Pathetic in every sense of the word. Wilson do you understand HISTORY at all? At All?

What happens to social groupings that prove themselves to be irrelevent to the changing social conditions around them? What happens to those who cannot or will not support their own National Structures? What happens to those whose every 'contribution'to society is an ad hominen attack without any pretense of objectivity or constructive criticism?

Keep up the good work. If you can't learn from history the least you can do,I fear, is to suffer the repetition of it.

Frankly I never thought it was a great tactical move to paint yourself into the essentially a waste of space corner, but I guess you know best.

The more I hear from 'your' side the more worried I get about the long-term consequences. Hopefully I am just over-cautious, but since you can NEVER win because you really offer NOTHING,and since this supposed 'equilibrium' is very much unstable and is creating in effect 'two solitudes', I don't see how the direction can be anything but down.

Good Luck with the landing.

I heard a different segment with Ware, where he basically disparaged everything - all of the training of Iraqi forces is a sham, no place is being handed over to the Iraqis, etc.

On the one hand, I have respect for him, because he is one of the few journalists that does take chances. But I have not gotten over his statements when he was receiving intel from the insurgents last year and rationalizing not helping to catch them. I also have issue with the fact that many of his opinions expressed does not match other journalists or milbloggers who are on the same scene.

Implied in the derision the left directs at Iraqi soldiers is that they are cowardly dogs who will never grow enough spine to defend themselves or their country. I thought this sort of group libel was long ago forbidden by the commisars of political correctness.

Amazing -- Wilson brings this up on another thread, inspiring Greyhawk to put together a post that thoroughly shreds Wilson's original take on this.

Maybe there is value in having Wilson around ... as "inspiration" for the rest of us, to stay on top of the rhetorical game.

Then again, maybe not ... ever think, Wilson, that the best thing to do to further your agenda is to put a stop to your irresponsible abuse of free speach?

Then again, your agenda will collapse under its own weight, anyway, since it is not based on sound principle and rational thought.

Michael Ware was on the now-defunct Aaron Brown show on CNN last year, telling the viewers that all the marines killed in Fallujah died for nothing because we couldn't win. All we were doing in Iraq was creating a massive army of "young men just as motivated as the marines," who would be victorious because there were just too many of them.

Then he started weeping.

Seriously.

re: Iraqi soldiers curling into ball, refusing to fight, etc.

I'm sure it happened. It happens in all armies. You never know what your reaction to being under fire will be until it happens. The adrenaline- inspired flee or fight response is a known part of the human condition - in any tense situation.

Mike Yon's post about the day the Deuce-Four commander was wounded includes an example of his GIs freezing in combat. The early days of WWII in Africa Americans often "froze" - Rick Atkinson's book "An Army at Dawn" gives several examples. And if you aren't familiar with Patton's response (and the response to Patton) you really need to watch the movie.

As for such soldiers, some go on to overcome that fear and do great things, others die, others find their skills are best used elsewhere.

How many froze in the latest battles? I don't know - but I know who won.

So Ware's description is accurate - his analysis is flawed, or is outright enemy propaganda. Osama bin Laden has said since day one of his jihad that cowardice among his enemies would ensure his victory.

Mainstream journalism has gone deeply into debt, trying to prove that Iraq is a quagmire. They have spent most of their credibility in this attack on Bush. They will be called to account, to repay. Some will need to find other jobs.

What happens to social groupings that prove themselves to be irrelevent to the changing social conditions around them? What happens to those who cannot or will not support their own National Structures? What happens to those whose every 'contribution'to society is an ad hominen attack without any pretense of objectivity or constructive criticism?

I'll tell you what happens: They become Republican political operatives who start "milblogs" to flog their rightwingnut politics under the phony guise of supporting the troops, who in fact they couldn't care less about.

The CNN reporter you refer to has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Special Forces in Iraq. SF have been training Iraqi units, so it certainly makes sense to have them accompany Iraqi troops into combat, and also to lend the planning and command and control capabilities of the U.S. military. But the ratio of SF advisers to Iraqi soldiers in these operations probably ranges from 1:50 to 1:250. So for CNN to argue that our SF guys were doing the majority of the fighting is incorrect.

Ah, yes, the inevitable sweeping statement that lumps the entirety of those to Wilson's right into the scheming Halliburton devotee operatives hell-bent on peddling their political agenda no matter what the cost. Ok, now I'm exagerating too- apologies. Apart from the rather non-sensical rants in bold italics (very effective gimmick- I almost jumped out of my seat with a Yeeeah!), I don't think it's appropriate to accuse anyone here of not caring for our troops. That's a cheap shot, and not very well aimed at that, considering the obvious base of military knowledge threaded through the "pro" entries versus the "con", which are usually confined to dissecting GW's speeches or regurgitating other blogs.

Now, would you like to know what I really think?--Wk

Perhaps later once you're back on the meds.

Or not. Either way would be fine.

Here's your typical chest-beating, nut-scratching milblogger:

http://w3t.org/?u=elf

Sorry, where exactly did it say the person in the article had a blog? Oh wait: it didn't, but hey they guy said he supported the war and you love guilt-by-association smears so it must mean he's a milblogger!

Do you order these links from ACME? Have you started printing out cards titled: "Wilson Kolb, Genius" yet?

If he didn't have a milblog, he should have. It's a great way for Republicans to fake patriotism and military credentials.

There is absolutely no concern displayed here, at any time, for the welfare of the troops.

A look at a few Dawn Patrols gives the lie to that, Wilson ... as does the frequent posts regarding Soldiers' Angels, and the recent Valour-IT project.

Beyond that, you just NEVER see Greyhawk or any of his amen chorus talking about inadequate armor on the vehicles ...

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001854.html

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002694.html

... lack of care in veterans hospitals ...

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001030.html

... and on a more general note ...

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001815.ht
ml

... lack of adequate equipment ...

See the posts on armor, above.

... and the bonehead plays like not sending enough troops in the beginning that allowed the looting of the big ammo dump whose explosives have been blowing up soliders ever since in the form of IEDs.

(not a big one, but it does address the issue) http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001654.html

... which puts things in the proper perspective and proportions, as do all these posts -- which is the difference between Greyhawk's commentary, and yours, Baghdad Willy.

I am sure the owner of this site can list other examples, as well ... please do, Greyhawk.

What I have just quoted, from your posts, are, by the standard you apply to my President, LIES -- except that in the case of these quotes, their lack of truth is verified by the links shown here, without the need to stretch every snippet of news that might favor my position to the point of total distortion.

And, there may be a hidden agenda here, too ... given your belief that the war was started because Saddam was going to switch from USD to Euros as his currency-of-choice, I wonder if you were heavily invested in Euros in anticipation of such a move, only to lose big when we removed the Butcher of Baghdad from power ... and now you want to take out your losses upon the one you think caused it.

You might say the same thing about currency-trader and MoveOn sugar daddy George Soros, as well ... no wonder you two sound alike.

If you have any shred of decency left, please focus your discussions on facts and reason, instead of cherry-picking and wild speculation ... for your usual method of operation has now been weighed thoroughly, and found wanting.

In other words, you don't have any proof that he has a milblog, but presumed such to fit your prejudices.

'scuse me, Pattycake, but I never quite claimed he had a milblog. I said he was typical of the milbloggers. Which he is, being a lying phony.

"Here's your typical chest-beating, nut-scratching milblogger:"

Hm. Looks like you're claiming he's a milblogger. Keep backpeddling.