Having returned from Iraq, Chief Wiggles has quite a mouthful for his dear readers:

In the whirl wind of political debate that is circling around the president regarding his motives for going to war, I find it curiously strange that no one has asked the opinion of those of us who have put our lives on the line to carryout that vary decision. Who better than us to answer the question regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a premise for going to war? Do the self proclaimed political experts write us off, assuming we are like sheep blindly following a miss guided shepherd to the extent of putting our own life in jeopardy? Do they really think we have not thought about the reasons for and justifications behind leaving our families and putting ourselves in harms way?

I could say, for the years to come, whether Bush is re-elected or not, that his opponents will hang on to a few core predictable accusations and opinions that are all too familiar. These include such buzzwords as “illegal war,” “lied to the American people,” “unilateral action,” “supporting the troops but not their commander-in-chief,” among so much more of the usual tripe that we come across. I have grown weary and tired of it all, and I am in no position to debate or argue over rhetoric and personal opinion. I am, however, disappointed in so many who remain so hung up and stuck in the past, talking about how “Bush stole the election,” how the WMD will never be found “because Saddam never had them,” that Bush apparently mentioned “something about Iraq being an imminent threat;” we also know this usual tripe. I am dissappointed because their narcolepsy over the past has blinded them to what is going on in the present — or at least has given them a lopsided view of things.

To answer Wiggles’ question that I quoted: Yes, I do think that so many of those opposed to the war have written off the American soldier as an unthinking sheep who doesn’t worry about the motivations of their leaders’ actions and would follow orders, even if it meant baby-killing. That is the only explanation I have as to why so few have considered asking the opinions of America’s sons and daughters who are there. I think they have written the Soldier off as a sheep because these people opposed to the war are probably assuming that if the Soldier is in agreement with their views, then they will put their guns down and demand for a release of duty. I think that a Soldier who one hundred percent agrees with what some of these anti-war people are saying has a moral duty to himself and his fellow people to surrender and be subject to the ICJ.

They have written the Soldier off as sheep for the very reason that they are not sheep.

As we are bombarded more and more with conflicting news, I would like to keep in mind the one thing that is keeping my head on straight. It’s the same thing that has kept so many other bloggers humble, whether they are for or against the war. The fact of the matter is, we only know, and can and may only know, so much. There remains a limit to the amount of information we as citizenry are privy to. This doesn’t trouble me, because I have this gut feeling that a full revelation of all the facts to the American public, at this point, will not sway the opinions of the most fixed minds: the loudest, most charismatic, and most likely to attract others to share their beliefs.

It is a well known human response that in the face of incontrovertible facts to the contrary, a true believer will further buttress his beliefs with self-deception.

(Link to Wiggles courtesy of the Insta-Glenn.)