Thursday, January 30, 2003


I haven't read warbloggerwatch in a dog's age. Based on the activity on their mail server or their comment fields, neither has anyone else.

Anyway, I thought I would check it out, and they are up to what they usually are -- personal attacks on Instapundit and random vitriol.

(For those who don't know or have forgotten, Warbloggerwatch is dedicated to making a record of history's greatest monsters - no, not Nobel peace prize winners, bloggers. They started their blog and mail server during the run-up to the Afghan war, stating that:

The War Blogger Weblog was created to discuss and document the war exhortations of warbloggers such as (but not limited to) Glenn Reynolds ( and Andrew Sullivan ( When the smoke clears and bodies are counted the evidence of their war mongering will be will be preserved there.

Well, a great deal of the smoke has cleared on the Afghan war and the best evidence seems to be:

1) The Taliban actually were harboring Al Quaida;
2) Al Quaida was actually responsible for the 9/11 bombing;
3) Al Quaida would not have stopped its campaign of world terror if we had responded with love instead of war to the 9/11 bombing; and
4) The lives of the Afghan people, while not perfect by a long shot, are a lot better today than they were under the Taliban.

I haven't seen a post thanking Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan for their "war mongering" on Afghanistan, but maybe I missed it.)

Anyway, let's see what warbloggerwatch has up lately. As an initial matter, they seem to be missing months from their archives, and no one is posting to their mail group, so it's not clear how WBW is "preserving" its record of who is responsible for the bodies. Anyway, lately they've got . . .

- An entry calling Glenn Reynolds the "Avatar of Idiocy" for linking to a post saying that Jewish anti-war activists avoided the peace rally because they were scared of A.N.S.W.E.R. The author concedes that "any movement is very much a mixed bag" (presumably meaning that your movement includes communists, racists, etc., but so what" and states that A.N.S.W.E.R.'s contribution was basically to get the permits and rent the buses. On the other hand, warbloggerwatch is also outraged that Trent Lott is a member of the Republican party. . . Hey, WBW! Any political party is necessarily a "mixed bag," as Pat Buchanan and Trent Lott can tell you. Or maybe they can't . . .

- A reprint of an Indymedia "George Bush e-mail scam." I'll tell you, I laughed my rear end off the first time I read this!

. . . when HappyFunPundit wrote it, that is. (HFP's versions are both shorter and funnier, as well, since they're not tied down by all the tiresome ranting).

- Another post picking on Glenn Reynolds. You decide - is warbloggerwatch (a) desperate for links, (b) too lazy to read anyone else or (c) both. Anyway, WBW is up in arms because Reynolds criticized France for unilaterally ignoring EU opinion and inviting the monster of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, to a conference.

I don't get the criticism. Does WBW think Mugabe is a nice person? If they are so interested in "counting the bodies," how about Mugabe's plan to starve as many as three million of his political opponents to death. Isn't it correct for Glenn to "preserve evidence" of France's dictator-mongering? WBW seems to be upset that Glenn has pointed out France's unilateral decision to coddle a dictator instead rather than some 17-point defense of the war. Surely there's room for both! In any event, it seems to me that (1) France's conduct is bad enough to be publicized regardless of its position on Iraq, and (2) France's unilateral decision to break with the EU in favor of a would-be murderer of millions tends to demonstrate that France's criticism of our Iraq actions are based on a self-interested desire to do business with the world's monsters rather than any concern about "unilateralism" or civilian lives (each of which France ignores when its own national interests are at stake).

Don't get me wrong - I'd write something mean about Glenn if I thought there was a chance of him linking to me. But it wouldn't be something this dumb.