Wolcott also has an uber-pompous blog, to which he recently posted "Headhunters," declaring theres a veritable Internet epidemic of warmongers literally calling for the heads of those whose only crime is to hold hands in a circle and sing "All we are saying is give peace a chance." He admits he sparked an angry backlash in an earlier blog post by calling Daniel Pipes "a patronizing little s[—]t." (Crude, but at least not pompous.)
Nevertheless, having stirred up the readership at Little Green Footballs, he refers to them not as a hornets nest or some such but rather a "disorganized Nuremberg Rally." Apparently nobody informed him that labeling your critics Nazis went out of fashion at about the same time as narrow neck ties.
He then quotes from one of the comments left on the LGF site: "May he [i.e., me] be kidnapped by insurgents in Iraq then appear on an ugly net broadcast. I wonder, if in the moment before the knife started sawing into his fleshy neck if he might rethink his opinions on the global war on terrorism."
Repeatedly Wolcott invokes what he calls "the Daniel Pearl treatment" and "Daniel Pearls martyrdom," as if Pearl – killed in Pakistan – were the only person ever to lose his head to a terrorist. Wolcott would not acknowledge a single decapitation in Iraq. Yet every reference to such beheadings that Wolcott was able to scrape up (Three – the one above, one from a blogger, and one from a baseball players wife) clearly referred to Iraq and to death by beheading, whereas Pearl was killed first and decapitated later.
What beheadings? Where? Do they serve cocktails?
Is Wolcotts real objection that its unfair to use the terrorists acts against them? Then our fleshy-necked friend who so quickly applies the Nazi label to others puts himself in the same camp as Holocaust deniers.
If his objection is that the decapitation stuff seems a bit crude, perhaps its because sawing off a living persons head is also a bit crude. In addition to showing the monstrousness of the enemy, what Wolcotts "headhunters" are saying is: "Ill bet you wouldnt like it if this were done to you" and chances are Wolcott wouldnt, insofar as it might interfere with his next wine-and-cheese party at the Ritz.
Towards the end of his blog, perhaps realizing that three beheading mentions do not an epidemic make, Wolcott invokes my blog entry regarding Cindy ("Fame! I want to live forever!") Sheehans threat to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the 2,000th death of an American serviceman in Iraq. Whereupon I commented: "Leave her there and maybe the crows will do the world a favor and eat her tongue out."
It was meant as dark humor, written in the knowledge that Sheehan would engage in no such action, thereby providing crows no such opportunity. (She didnt; they didnt.) I did realize some people would be foolish enough to think I was serious, but I didnt think somebody would not only pretend I was serious but compare losing a tongue to losing a head simply because it fit his theme.
I should have. After all, these are the people who compare forcing detainees at Guantanamo Bay to listen to loud rap music to the horrors of the German concentration camps and the Soviets Gulags. (In and of itself a form of Holocaust denial, to equate being gassed or starved to death with having to listen to bad tunes.)
So what are we to make of this Wolcott who makes war on alleged warmongers? He is offended that somebody might suggest he mentally put himself in the place of an Iraqi terrorist victim, yet he refuses to acknowledge there have been such victims. There was Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and that was the end of it.
So theres your look into the mind of the enemy on the home front. You might find those decapitation videos to be less nauseating.
Read Michael Fumentos other work on the media.