I also enjoy MYKERU. While he doesn't publish as often as The Rude Pundit he is equally adept at sticking it to the right wing gas bags.
Anyone not liking it can ban me or kiss my ass, either one will suit me just fine.
Anyone not liking it can ban me or kiss my ass, either one will suit me just fine.
An irritatingly long and exhaustive investigation into Fighting Keyboarder nonsense.
Yeah, yeah, I know there are more important things than obvious bits of off-the-cuff desperate wingnuttiness to go over with a fine-tooth comb, but bear with me on this.
Really, I was going to try to write about something relevant, but the sheer joyful and completely wrong irrelevancy of some good, old-fashioned drawn-from-the-ass wingnutty goodness is too good to pass up. And there's a lesson in there, somewhere.
Here's the deal: Eschaton had one of his typically terse links, War Blogger Fatigue, that directs one to Lawyers, Guns and Money where you'll find a little gem from that monumental idiot Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds. Reynolds is caught trying to rally the troops, in this case not the actual troops doing the real fighting and dying, but the formerly infatigable 101st Fighting Keyboarders who seem to be getting a bit frayed around the edges trying to justify the invasion and war in Iraq and, for those of suitable age, why their candy asses aren't fighting in it. Along with the prospect of having to do the same bullshit song and dance all over again for any potential military action against Iran, they seem to be feeling hopeless. An attack on Iran is eminently doable once America can scrape together enough military to do anything but be bogged down in Iraq, minus the National Guard needed to patrol the Mexican border and potentially help a city we want to bother to save. Which would mean, unlike New Orleans, in the event of a natural disaster in which a Republican voting bloc is in dire peril. Which means that this is no time for the Fighting Keyboarders to declare "Mission Accomplished" and hit the Little Debbie Snack Cakes.
Instapundit, to back up his point which wasn't worth making in the first place, linked to a completely ahistorical and idiotic comment about the fighting tactics of the Roman Legions to buck up the Fighting Keyboarders, adding "There's wisdom in this comment".
Robert Farley of LG&M sets up the kill:
Insty links, in characteristically laconic style, to this comment:Now, I'm no historian, but neither am I a chickenhawk wingnut war blogger with the luxury of just making shit up™ and, failing that, lazily linking to just made up shit, but upon reading that I immediately thought of what everyone thought who commented on that bit of bullshit, which Instapundit endorses with his link and one line critique.
They're talking here not so much about actually fighting the War on Terror, but about how hard it is to be a warblogger. Let that sink in for a minute. Neo-neocon, who apparently has never encountered the concept of self-parody, even invokes Churchill in support of the weary, put upon warblogger. In the real world, 44 Americans have died in Iraq so far this month. They don't, so much, have the luxury of warblogger fatigue.
The Roman Legion was organized to fight in lines, averaging maybe 6 to 8 men deep. In battle the man at the front would fight for about 8 minutes, then move to the back of the line and the person behind him would take his place at the front. After another interval he too would then move to the back and the person behind him would take the front position. Organized in this way each man fought for about 8 minutes out of every 48 to 64. The enemies of the Romans often succomed to fatigue long before the Legionaires did.
It's ok to get fatigued, and it's ok to take a step back. There is a person behind you who will fill the gap. And when you are refreshed you can rejoin the battle.
What everyone thought was "It's friggin' impossible".
No, really, imagine this: You're in the Roman Legion, in the front line in hand-to-hand combat with some individual of the barbarian hordes and after eight minutes or so you manage to disengage yourself from the fight and move to the back. I sat thinking about how this might work for a good eight minutes myself and I have a watch, unlike an ancient roman legion. Even if you were on the outer edge of the phalanx it would be a tough retreat to pull off. There's only two ways to move away from an enemy and neither of them are a tactically good idea. You can either back away from them, in which case you're giving up ground and bumping into the guy behind you, or you can turn your back to them, in which case you're not even going to get a posthumous decoration for valor. It's almost as if Glenn Reynolds, approving sort that he is, confused the formation of a Roman Legion with the USC Trojans Marching Band which, in the tiny little head space that is his world, is entirely possible.
So, in direct violation of the Wingnut Code of Journalistic Ethics (Google keyword search: "making shit up"), I decided to actually look it up, turning to Wikipedia which by no means should be considered a definitive source on anything, but is often a good starting point for getting a grasp of the subject at hand. In this case the entry Roman Legion lead to the entry for Roman infantry tactics, strategy and battle formations. The information contained there might not be canonical, but neither does it stink of Instapundit's ass or, in this case, the ass of a wingnut commenter who was kind enough to let Glenn reach up his colon to appropriate that bit of completely made up information. Now, admittedly, a lot of what follows is dry historical reading but by slogging through it you will be treading the ground of actual research which is a place the average fighting wingnut keyboarders never finds himself in, rather like combat itself and real vaginas not made of rubber.
So let's look at the sub-entry Formations and Tactics, which is rather long and involved, so entertain yourself by trying to spot anything remotely like what Reynolds is approvingly disseminating to the pseudo war-weary war bloggers.
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=193>Formations and tactics Roman infantry was deployed, as the main body, facing the enemy, in three lines, with the cavalry or equites on their wings. The less experienced cohorts - usually the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th - were in the front; the more experienced cohorts - 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th - were placed behind.
They were deployed in a Quincunx checkered pattern, in Latin triplex acies, with archers and auxiliares in the spaces between the cohorts. Before each battle, the commander exhorted his troops with a speech, and after that speech each soldier screamed his war cry and clashed his own gladius on his shield, a psychological tactic to demoralize the enemy.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Well, ok, the war bloggers have that last shield-banging trick down, albeit thousands of miles from where the real fighting is going on, which may be why they're the ones so demoralized at this point. The entry continues:
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=610>The legionaries could assume different battle formations according to different tactical situations.
- Repellere equites ("repel horses") was the formation used to resist cavalry. The legionaries would assume a square formation, holding their pila as spears in the space between their shields and strung together shoulder to shoulder.
- At the command eicere pila, the legionaries hurled their pila at the enemy.
- At the command cuneum formate, the infantry formed a wedge to charge and break enemy lines. This formation was used as a shock tactic.
- At the command contendite vestra sponte, the legionaries assumed an aggressive stance and attacked every opponent they faced.
- At the command orbem formate, the legionaries assumed a circle-like formation with the archers placed in the midst of and behind the legionaries providing missile fire support. This tactic was used mainly when a small number of legionaries had to hold a position and were surrounded by enemies.
- At the command ciringite frontem, the legionaries held their position.
- At the command frontem allargate, a scattered formation was adopted.
- At the command testudinem formate, the legionaries assumed the testudo (tortoise) formation. This was slow moving but almost impenetrable to enemy fire, and thus very effective during sieges and/or when facing off against enemy archers.
- At the command Agminem formate, the legionaries assumed a square formation, which was also the typical shape of a century in battle.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
None of which has the sort of choreography to make it into Reynolds' military history version of "That's Entertainment".
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=366>
Many Roman battles, especially during the late empire, were fought with the preparatory fire from Ballistas and Onagers. These war machines, a form of ancient artillery, fired arrows and large stones towards the enemy (although many historians question the battlefield effectiveness of such weapons). Following this barrage, the Roman infantry advanced, in four lines, until they came within 30 meters of the enemy, then they halted, hurled their pila and charged. If the first line was repelled by the enemy, another line would rapidly resume the attack. Often this rapid sequence of deadly attacks proved the key of victory.
Another common tactic was to taunt the enemy with feigned charges and rapid arrow fire by the auxilares equites (auxiliary cavalry), forcing the enemy into pursuing them, and then leading the enemy into an ambush where they would be counter attacked by Roman heavy infantry and cavalry.
"Breaking phalanxes" best illustrates the Roman army's flexibility. Every time the Romans faced phalangite armies, the legions deployed the velites in front of the enemy with the command to contendite vestra sponte, to cause confusion and panic into the solid blocks of the phalanxes. Meanwhile, auxilia archers were deployed on the wings of the legion in front of the cavalry, in order to defend their withdrawal. These archers were ordered to ejaculare flammas, fire incendiary arrows into the enemy. The cohorts then advanced in a wedge formation, supported by the velites' and auxilaries' fire, and charged into the phalanx at a single point, breaking it, then flanking it with the cavalry to seal the victory.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Then there's some additional information on Roman siege warfare that has nothing to do with infantry formations, but makes for an interesting read if you're into archaic forms of warfare. Donald Rumsfeld take note.
So maybe this "fight for a few and then lay back and get a cool drink and some Cheetos" technique happened later on in the Roman Empire. After all, all sorts of wacky things happened during the Roman Empire, like Caligula making his horse a Senator and the whole damn empire converting to Christianity under Constantine. Which you think is actually wackier being a matter of personal preference. To me, a horse being a senator doesn't seem to be a completely insane concept, considering the sort of people who are currently Senators, and especially after Katherine Harris had a go at it.
Anyway, back to Roman tactics:
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=89>The Tetrarchy and late Roman empire During the reign of Diocletian, or the Tetrarchy as its later years are called, the Roman army underwent its most extensive modification since the time of Marius, in terms of organization, equipment and dispositions.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Extensive modifications, this might be it, kids: Fight-fight-fight-kick-spin-spirit fingers.
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=187>The old legions were divided into two types. The legions defending the frontiers or limes were kept at close to traditional, full strength (4,000-6,000 with an equal number of auxiliaries) and comprised of Limitanei. Should an enemy manage to get by them, the new mobile field legions of 1,000-1500 Comitatenses and cavalry would engage them. The Comitatenses, in turn, were backed up by the Palatinae (Palace units), elite guard troops of cavalry and heavy infantry under the direct command of the Augusti, Caesari or Magister militum. These units had 500-1000 men. Originally about two-thirds of the army's strength was in frontier forces. The remainder were the mobile units which the Augusti and Caesars kept centrally located in their territories. Command of the field forces was under a magister peditum (Master of foot) and magister equitum (master of horse). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Nah, bummer. But you're learning all sorts of history, which makes you ineligible for a membership in The Free Republic and an editorial position at NewsMax. Or to teach law at the University of Tennessee, apparently.
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=269>At first, the core of both types of legions remained the classical legiones. But as the empire declined and pressures on the frontiers increased, the size of the frontier legions were reduced to 3000 and eventually 1000 each. The limitanei became unreliable, lightly-armed conscripts, who were little better than border guards. Consequently, the importance of the mobile field forces, auxilary troops, cavalry and barbarian allies increased. These included:
A new type of auxiliary infantry soldier was adapted- the lanciarii, to better repell barbarian cavalry.
- Alae that were classic formations of auxiliary cavalry
- Vexillationes platinae et comitanenses autonomous Task forces of 500 cavalrymen.
- Laeti Allied barbarian cavalry
- Numeri Foederati cavalry.
Over time as the empire's finances were strained and standards of training and discipline declined, equipment changed as well. Tranditional, ornate helmets were replaced by simple, one piece "casque" types which were easier and cheaper to produce. Likewise the lorica segmentata was replaced with the scale-mail hamata; the gladius with the longer spatha, and the scutum with the smaller, lighter, more oval-shaped parma. The pilum was replaced by the short spear spiculum for throwing or stabbing and by plumbatae or throwing darts. Ranged, missile weapons came to be preferred over the older melee ones. Close quarters combat and shock tactics were left to the cavalry and a small number of elite heavy infantry in the Comitatenses and Palatinae.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
See what you can learn from history: "Over time as the empire's finances were strained and standards of training and discipline declined...". Of course, Santayana aside, if you can't remember the past, indeed, if you are too dumb to know it in the first place, then you get all the fun of repeating it while thinking you're doing something new and different. The wingnut warmongers are so adept at this, in fact, that the lag time between Vietnam and Iraq is only 40 year. Still short of the record for fucking up all over again established by German militarists in the 20th Century, however.
Still, no sign of intricate legion dance steps. What we need is a visual. You know, John Madden stuff with circles and arrows showing that precision maneuver. Sort of like this:
But we're just not getting it. Apparently the wingnut habit of making something so just because you say/believe it to be so, which has thus far worked out like gangbusters in Iraq, is falling short of actual "wisdom".
Time for a general Google search, which lead to such sources as An Illustrated History of the Roman Empire which might know just a little bit more about Roman military tactics, military tactics in general and the difference between shit and shinola than old Insty does. Then again, Glenn Reynolds is the only Distinguished Professor of Law that I can honestly imagine being beaten at checkers by a lemur. To be fair, Reynolds is a Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, although it might mean something that Beauchamp Brogan is himself distinguished only by being University of Tennessee general counsel and secretary to the board of trustees.
Anyway, in the Illustrated History of the Roman Empire's description of Roman infantry tactics we get the now familiar tortoise, wedge and skirmish formation but nothing about the fighting legion's Busby Berkeley dance number routine.
Resistance is futile
The closest you get to whatever the hell was going in in Reynolds' mind is in the general discussion of The Roman Army. Just read through it to get to the diagrams:
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=middle bgColor=#ffffff height=521>
The Early Legion (4th century BC)
In abandoning the phalanx, the Romans showed their genius for adaptability.
Though much of the credit might not be due to the Romans alone. For Rome was a founding member of the Latin League, an alliance initially formed against the Etruscans. The development of the early legion therefore might well be seen as a Latin development.
There were now three lines of soldiers, the hastati in the front, the principes forming the second row, and the triarii, rorarii and accensi in the rear.
At the front stood the hastati, who were most likely the spearmen of the second class in the previous organization of the phalanx. The hastati contained the young fighters and carried body armour and a rectangular shield, the scutum, which should remain the distinctive equipment of the legionary throughout Roman history. As weapons they carried a sword each and javalins. Though attached to the hastati were far more lightly armed skirmishers (leves), carrying a spear and several javelins.
The soldiers of the old first class now appear to have become two types of units, the principes in the second line and the triarii in the third line. Together they formed the heavy infantry.
The principes were the picked men of experience and maturity. They were similarly, though better equipped than the hastati. In fact the principes were the best equipped men in the early legion.
The triarii were veterans and still much looked and functioned like the heavily armed hoplites of the old Greek phalanx.The other new units, the rorarii, accensi (and leves) represented what once had been the third, fourth and fifth class in the old phalanx system.Gee, I dunno, there's something that sounds, well, familiar about rorarii and accensi. I think Crooks and Liars actually spotted one with Randi Rhodes on Larry King the other day. Unfortunately, when Rhodes brought up the obvious question of why this young fightin' buck wasn't over in Iraq absorbing IED blasts with his bulletproof hair (Note to Ted Koppel: We found your old toupee), they cut away to commercial before he could be plucked and brushed with barbeque sauce.The rorarii were younger, inexperienced men, and the accensi were the least dependable fighters.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
All the Illustrated History tells you, before they get to the illustrating, is that after the Romans abandoned the phalanx formation, where the soldiers behind would push inexorably on the soldiers in front of them, forcing them into the enemy in a sort of armored festival seating, which itself made the sort of organized switching of ranks Reynolds references still impossible, they adopted a tiered system with, predictably, the best fighters in front and the slackers in the rear.
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=269>
At the front the hastati and principes each formed a maniple of about 60 men, with 20 leves attached to each maniple of hastati.
At the back the triarii rorarii and accensi were organized into a group of three maniples, about 180 men, called an ordo. As the historian Livy quotes the main fighting force, the principes and the hastati, at a strength of fifteen maniples then the following size could be assumed for a legion:
<TABLE align=center border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle bgColor=lightgrey><TD>15 groups of leves (attached to the hastati)</TD><TD>300</TD></TR><TR bgColor=white><TD>15 hastati maniples</TD><TD align=right>900</TD></TR><TR bgColor=lightgrey><TD>15 principes maniples</TD><TD align=right>900</TD></TR><TR bgColor=white><TD>45 maniples (15 ordi) triarii, rorarii, accensi</TD><TD align=right>2700</TD></TR><TR bgColor=lightgrey><TD>Total fighting force (without horsemen)</TD><TD align=right>4800</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The tactics were thus;
The hastati would engage the enemy. If things got too hot, they could fall back through the lines of the heavy infantry principes and re-emerge for counter attacks.
Behind the principes knelt a few yards back, the triarii who, if the heavy infantry was pushed back, would charge forward with their spears, shocking the enemy with suddenly emerging new troops and enabling the principes to regroup. The triarii were generally understood as the last defence, behind which the hastati and principes could retire, if the battle was lost. Behind the closed ranks of the triarii the army would then try to withdraw.
There was a Roman saying 'It has come to the triarii.' which described a desperate situation.Hastati + Leves in frontThe closest one can come to anything like what exists in wingnut historical fantasy is "The hastati would engage the enemy. If things got too hot, they could fall back through the lines of the heavy infantry principes and re-emerge for counter attacks", but all that means is that in a pinch the younger, more lightly armed front line troops could fall back and let the more experienced, heavily armed troops have a go at the enemy. Which, of course, is just how the chickenhawks like it.<TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD bgColor=#ff0000></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE width=300 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ff0000><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Principes <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Triarii <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Rorarii <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Accensi <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Wait, no, I take that back. That would mean the chickenhawks and other members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, those fatigued by their tireless mission to go let other people fight the wars they support, would have to be somewhere near actual fighting where their fat frat-boy asses would be in harm's way. Which is just not how the natural order of things happen in wingnut taxonomy. Shield-beating from half a world away is more their style.
Now, had the Roman Legions existed today, and had they had access to chickenhawks and and Fighting Keyboarders, their formations would have looked something like this:
<TABLE height=417 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#000000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=middle bgColor=#ffffff height=441>
Hastati + Leves in front<TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD bgColor=#ff0000></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE width=300 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ff0000><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Principes <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD><TD align=middle>-</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Triarii <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Rorarii <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Accensi <TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><CENTER><CENTER>
Old Women and Children
</CENTER><TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#00ffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><CENTER>
Gimps and Ladyboys
</CENTER><TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff99ff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<CENTER>101st Fighting Keyboarders
</CENTER><TABLE height=10 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ffff00 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Cheeto Supply Line
<TABLE height=5 width=300 align=center bgColor=#ff6600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So, what have we proved? Well, first, that just making shit up is far easier than refuting the made up shit, which is why being a wingnut is simply not the sort of activity that involves heavy lifting, mental or otherwise. How they manage to get fatigued by this is anyone's guess. Maybe just making shit up doesn't come easy to some people and involves more mental effort than we suppose. Why wingnut pundits and apologist are averse to fact checking and looking things up is not only obvious, but tautological: Because if they started looking things up, there goes the gig dependent on making shit up.
There's a self-referential logic in that: If you're going to rally the keyboarders to just make shit up for a war based on just making shit up, what could be more inspiring than some shit that was just made up?
Second, the Romans kept the less experienced fighters in the back. They were clever enough to leave the truly useless ones at home, probably as senatorial aids to Mr. Ed. These days we're not so crazy as to make our horses Senators, but apparently any old horse's ass can be a wingnut pundit.
Heh, indeed.
