« Freedom's Light Burning Warm | Main | About those weapons... »

For Marc Weisblott

Marc, in the comments on this post about that whiny, wretched Canadian friend of yours, you point to my "retirement" as a warblogger as proof that your friend was right. Wrong. She was implying that the silence of warbloggers was indicative of some loss - that perhaps we were now silenced by shame, or a sense of loss in the war. No, I think that sometimes most of us just get tired of feeling outraged all the time, especially when people like Antonia act as if we have no right to feel all the things we do; pride towards people like Pat Tillman and outrage towards people like Michael Moore. It gets frustrating and sometimes I want to stop but it in no way means that my views on the war on terror are any different, or that I feel any less pride in my country and gratitude towards our soldiers than I did before. If you are going to use Antonia's column as some kind of jumping off point to whip yourself into a frenzy ringing the warblogger death knell, you should first read a few of those blogs that Antonia points to. Sorry, Marc. We are not going away. And even if we do go away briefly, it's not because you won this round of checkers and we're taking our board and going home. Sometimes some of us just need to rest and regroup and gather our strength for another round of battle with the likes of you and yours. In fact, it was mainly warbloggers who linked to and posted this story at Command Post, where we raised $14,000 for a very worthy, very non-political cause. We were hoping the left bloggers would link to it as well (only one or two did), but I guess they were too busy trying to tell people how bad America is. Too bad they missed the forest for the trees. Silence can mean a lot of things, Marc. It does not always mean death. Sorry, man. You got your hopes up for nothing. Update: Jeff has gathered all the necessary links.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference For Marc Weisblott:

» This Goes Out To You, This Goes Out To You, This G from things fall apart
Total number of American soldiers lost between Friday May 14 and Sunday May 16 = 8. Total mentions of their deaths on A Small Victory, Vodkapundit and Instapundit = 0. [Read More]


I'd like to know what the term is for this psychological phenomenon. People will state that something is happening not because it is, but because they want it to be, even when the proof is right before them.

Kind of like denial with a twist.

If anything it appears the blogs she was speaking of are more active than ever. But she didn't want that to be, so she simply stated that they were dying.

I don't get it.

I believe the term you're looking for is "delusional." ;)

Sort of an interesting article by Antonia. It seems like she got her feelings hurt for being called names, and threatens to have her boyfriend beat up the mean people.

What's most telling, of course, is her glee over the fact that she perceives that things in Iraq are going terribly, and the US will be forced to bend her knee and retreat. What is lost on Dear Antonia is what it will mean for the world if this battle really is lost. Canada, of course, with her gutted military and economic crisis caused by social program spending will be ill equipped to deal with the influx of bad people who want them to either be Muslim, or want them to be dead. I wonder how Antonia will feel about that?

You're probably looking for "projection," Marble.


[Not a perfect fit, but it's close. Delusional is also very good. :)]


I do think that for a few days there was some wavering in resolve. I can think of at least three very discouraged posts from warbloggers last weekend. The good news is that the Nick Berg video seems to have stiffened everybody's spine.

What's funny to me is how closely the left's psychology really does mirror historical examples of mass delusion. They seem to typically be found in places of isolation, like convents, monasteries, and the like:


The funny thing with the left is that their isolation is entirely self-made; just treat all data from non-ideologically-approved sources as false, tainted, or fraudulent (unless the source happens to support your position, in which case it's the Unvarnished Truth.)

Michele: I was standing behind my comment to Antonia, and using your experience as further proof. My observation wasn't an ideological one. There's also a difference between being quoted in a story and writing the story. If you're oversensitive about making a spectacle about hanging it up, and then changing your mind, that's just fine--it's all part of the "train wreck" effect. (Your words at the time, not mine.) Keep on keepin' on ... best to you and yours.

Oversensitive? Wow, you are really out there, Mark. This isn't about me, you dope.

Once again, Antonia's take on the silence from the warbloggers and my reasons for not blogging were apples and oranges.

You really are the idiot they say you are. I'm mildy amused by you.

Spin spin spin. All I did was express a general observation regarding warblogger fatigue, which led to me being tarred by a commenter as a terrorist sympathizer. Sigh. I check in here several times a week and that's the general impression you gave off with the quitting thing. I do hope you get a chance someday to write a professionally edited article or column. Since that seems to be what you're shooting for--unless I'm wrong about that, too--I look forward to it happening. But beware the wrath of the armchair detractors ...

Sounds like the typical troll method of declaring victory. If someone gets tired of dealing with the asshat it bleats about how it won the argument.

But for his decision to invade Iraq, Bush would be riding high in the polls today for having gotten rid of the Taliban regime in Afganistan, and we'd be using the UN to keep Saddam on a leash, perhaps allowing him only to snarl at the Iranians (a far greater threat to us than the Iraqis). I always thought that the whole idea of using American blood to bring the blessings of democracy to Muslims or Arabs to be utterly insane, and divorced from reality. Democracy is for Westerners and their cultural progeny, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, White people (who invented it in Greece) and those of other races and creeds who decide to adopt it on their own. We have no business forcing it down any other group's throat.

mr republican,
while i agree that there is a good chance bush's poll numbers may be higher today if he hadn't gone to iraq, i am still glad he did. the un's leash on saddam was extremely thin and threatening to break at moment, and bush decided to put that mad dog down. regardless of what it did to his poll numbers, it had to be done, and he did it.

and as for the rest of your post...democracy can't be forced, but people reppressed from giving it a chance, and the people repressing that choice can be forced out. i'm not sure what you're trying to say about different "groups" adopting democracy, but it can work for anybody, given a chance and a clear enough perspective. iraq now has the former, hopefully they pull their heads out of thier fifth point of contact and use the latter.

But beware the wrath of the armchair detractors ...

And their cousins, the armchair stalkers. Can't forget those, can we?

Hm. I've been coming here daily for years now, and when Michele told me she was quitting, what I got was that she was tired of the personal attacks--not that she was disillusioned about the causes she believes in.

But now, with the news getting more dire, the quag more mired and the cost of war ever higher, the warbloggers find themselves on the wrong side of history. And so some of them are putting down their mice and putting up a white flag.

Ah, yeah... that's just why Michele quit blogging.

And, by the way... how's that retirement going, Michele?

The really inane part of this is the idea that only a particular subset of bloggers have taken a long break or retired their blog. I've long since lost count of all the blogs that have ceased since before the term 'blog' was in use. Only a small fraction of those can be termed 'warblogs.' Most in the category have kept going at a grand pace.

All I did was express a general observation regarding warblogger fatigue, which led to me being tarred by a commenter as a terrorist sympathizer. Sigh. I check in here several times a week and that's the general impression you gave off with the quitting thing.</>

If someone's interpretation of another's purpose or intent is wrong, that doesn't make it "spin, spin, spin."

What it means is that they read something into the words that wasn't there.

Jumping to conclusions, jumping to conclusions, jumping to conclusions.....