March 26, 2003
Who Is The Dickhead ChickenHawk Now?

I shouldn't pick on the mentally and morally retarded, but I can't resist noting that 'Hesiod Theogeny' has come out of the closet as a chickenhawk. He's sitting on his fat anonymous* ass somewhere in the American Midwest telling British troops in Basra to get themselves killed supporting the local insurrection. Needless to say, the spelling is his, not mine:

The course of the entire Iraq war DEPENDS on how the coalition reacts to this move by the Shi'ites.

If we do not provide immediate, and overwhelimg support for the uprising, even at the cost of Coalition lives and equiptment, it would send a very negative signal to anyone else in Iraq who may be thinking about taking up arms against the regime.

. . . .

Now, we are obviosly trying to help the uprising in Basra. But, to what extent? There are suggestions that we aren't doing enough. Or rather, that the British [who are primarily engaged there] are not doing enough.

It's time to put up or shut up. Go in there and help them. Or send a signal to the rest of Iraq that you are not really there to liberate anyone.

This would be good advice, except that (a) it's nothing the Pentagon doesn't already know, and (b) who the Hell is 'Hesiod' to give it? After months of abuse of 'chickenhawks', he fails to recognize simple irony.

Of course, this is the same 'Hesiod' who can think of only one reason why the U.S. armed forces might be pleased with news coverage of the war in Iraq so far:

MEDIAWHORES WAKEUP CALL: You know the media are completely and utterly failing to do their jobs when you get stories that start out like this:

"Pentagon officials said Friday they are pleased with the way the American media have portrayed the war . . . ."

Edward R. Murrow just did a triple backflip in his grave.

His sycophantic comment-trolls are just as clueless. It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them that allied armed forces might think (rightly or wrongly) that the press is usually hostile, so even a neutral 'warts and all' approach is a huge improvement and a pleasant surprise. At least this time the press isn't making shit up, as they did with 'Tailwind'.

(If the precise links don't work, both posts are dated today, at 9:36 AM and 2:37 PM. If he wants to be taken seriously, 'Hesiod' should move off Blogspot, but that would force him to acquire his own domain, which would endanger his precious anonymity.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*If this seems hypocritical, please note that I'm pseudonymous but not anonymous: my real name is easy enough to find, and I've even given it in his comments section.

Posted by Dr. Weevil at March 26, 2003 11:59 PM
Comments

Good lord, Weev, you still reading that slime's blog?

Posted by: Robin Roberts on March 27, 2003 01:02 PM

I invite everyone to come visit my blog to read that post.

You'll discover that I was, essentially, AGREEING with Kenneth Pollack, who said much the same thing on CNN that morning.

Of course, Weevy is too much of a propagandist and liar to tell you all that. He will just assume you are too stupid to actually go and read it for yourselves.

C'mon over folks. I'm sure you'll enjoy yourselves. You might even learn a few things.

Posted by: Hesiod on March 27, 2003 01:23 PM

More projection (or should we call it projectile commenting?) from Hesiod.

The words I quote as his are cut-and-pasted from his site, where they are not in quotation marks, not indented, and sprinkled with typically Hesiodic subliterate misspellings. Either he's plagiarized them from Pollack -- unlikely, given the misspellings -- or they are his own paraphrase of Pollack. Either way he clearly endorses the idea that British troops should go die in large numbers because he thinks it would be tactically valuable. It may or may not be: I trust the commanders on the scene, and their superior officers, to make that particular decision.

I didn't criticize Pollack because I don't know whether he has ever called supporters of war 'chickenhawks'. 'Hesiod' has, repeatedly, and yet he is now acting as one himself, which makes him a hypocrite as well. Also a propagandist and a liar, of course, but what else is new? (Unless he's an undercover agent provocateur of the VRWC, of course, as many of us like to think.)

Interesting that he doesn't bother to answer the second criticism.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil on March 27, 2003 04:25 PM

hesiod's favorite perjorative changes periodically. It used to be everyone who did not sycophantically agree with him was a chickenhawk. When that grew old, it was pro Bin Laden. Now it's 'Neo-McCarthyite' in about 4 different spellings. Change is good.

Posted by: Gary on March 27, 2003 10:33 PM

Oh, Hayseed -- your war commentary and analysis are both too far above this chickenhawk's head. I'll take my medicine where I can get it, even if it must come from the evil Weevil.

Posted by: Scott on March 28, 2003 12:06 AM

I see that your blog sycophants are still insecure in their intellectual abilities to actually go and read my blog posts for themselves.

And, yes, I did paraphrase Pollack's argument.

And, accusing me of being a "Chickenhawk," is fine as far as it goes. There are a couple of logical problems that it creates from your standpoint though, weevy.

First, you totally disdain the epithet and think it's illegitimate. So, by your own standards, your accusation is not only hypocritical, but dishonest and dumb to boot.

Second, even if you did accept the Chickenhawk concept [which would make you one in spades], it's incorrectly applied in my case.

That's because, I am AGAINST the war in general. I want it to stop.

The only reason I highlighted Pollack's commment was because that now that the coalition has decided to launch the invasion [something I opposed], they ought to do whatever it takes to make this a success as quickly and painlessly as possible.

If that means demonstrating to the average Iraqi on the street that you are actually willing to take serious risks to protect and help the civilian population...you do it.

After all...aren't we there to "liberate" them?

What kind of message does it send to relatively lightly, or unarmed Iraqi shi'ites rising up against the regime, and getting killed for it, if the heavily armed British don't do much beyond long distance mortar attacks on Ba'ath party buildings?

Now that we are in this thing, we ought to do it right, or go home.

BTW...I'm sorry about youe emplyment situation. I hope the Bush economy hasn't come up to bite you in the ass.


Posted by: Hesiod on March 28, 2003 10:35 AM

I think he means the Clinton recession, since the slide began long before the election. But I guess relevancy has never been his long suit.

Posted by: David Perron on March 28, 2003 10:46 AM

'I see that your blog sycophants are still insecure in their intellectual abilities to actually go and read my blog posts for themselves.'

Well, I've read your blog off and on, and have long ago come to the conclusion that both you and your blog are totally irrelevant. You reinvent your positions weekly, can't keep your own history of postings straight, and betray a glaring inability to grasp anything but the most superficial lessons of history. Your questioning of any one else's intellectual abilities is farcicalwhen your own abilities cannot maintain any consistent position or rationally evolving one.

'That's because, I am AGAINST the war in general. I want it to stop.'

No, that is a lie for two reasons.

First, you are against anything you can torque into a republican position, initiative, or policy whether they are or not, and against the current administration in particular. Your opposition to the war is just grist for that mill, not based on any morally, ethically, or logically derived position.

Second, you will continue to reinvent your history as you have been doing in the last two weeks until in some near future you will be maintaining that you were for the war all along. In that near future, when the administration's rationale for the war is unequivocably revealed as valid, you'll maintain that your postition all along was concern over the issues stemming from the war's aftermath. You'll have to do this, because it's not in your character to admit that you never had a logical refutation to that rationale all along.

Posted by: Gary on March 28, 2003 11:14 AM

I see that your blog sycophants are still insecure in their intellectual abilities to actually go and read my blog posts for themselves.

Your.
Blog.
Sux.

If I were an idiot looking for a left-wing circle jerk and false information (& atrios' site was down), I'd surely be there, though.

Posted by: Ricky on March 30, 2003 10:18 AM

First, you are against anything you can torque into a republican position, initiative, or policy whether they are or not, and against the current administration in particular. Your opposition to the war is just grist for that mill, not based on any morally, ethically, or logically derived position.

Gary nailed it. Perfectly.

Posted by: Jay Caruso on March 30, 2003 05:23 PM

And leave it to Hesiod to Bush bash and throw a jab at the Doc at the same time.

Not only are you an idiot Hesiod, but you have no class as well.

Posted by: Jay Caruso on March 30, 2003 05:47 PM

Why thanks Jay, though it's no great mental task to work out his underlying rationale. The same can be said for Atrios and jesse. Makes all three irrelevant in the long run to anyone not having the same mindset. One trick ponys all of them.

Posted by: Gary on March 31, 2003 11:07 AM