Anti War Protests

[canon]

Canon and Slothrop,

With all due respect gentlemen, the issue of weapons is a mute point. Bush has settled that issue by admitting to the nation that there were no weapons found and that the intel was wrong. See the 12/18/05' speech. Iraq is not about WMD.

With all due respect too, my position hasn't been that we are there for weapons. With or without the wmd, the UN authorized the use of "any means necessary" to enforce the resolutions. As stated by Ari Fleischer, the cease fire found in UN R.678 was based on certain conditions. When those conditions weren't met, that stands as the legal basis for an end to the cease fire. Argue it all you want, I understand there are two camps and my tent resides in the one that is outlined in black and white in the resolutions.

Thanks for the input... I have dismiss the whole biblical tie-in for reasons that the formation of Isreal offers little justification for targeting civilians. If Israel isn't attacking anyone, they shouldn't be taking fire. jmo too.

The reasons for overthrowing Saddam have changed as the fog that the Bushi'ites used to obfuscate the real reasons has been lifted. It was never about freeing a people, it has always been about a grand vision by people who have choosen to ignore history.

My greater concern is the position that their folly has left us in.

Our standing in the world community has been tarnished badly. Those who were once our friends no longer trust us. The big winners in this fiasco will likely be the Russians and the Chinese. Their influence is rising rapidly.

Since I'm on probation (again) this post won't show up for hours, if at all, so I'll leave my response at that for now.

Sorry, but you're going to have to tell what the "grand vision" is. Are you suggesting the ultimate goal was to become the president with the lowest ratings in history? Maybe Bush is a democratic "plant" pretending to be republican in order to secure a landslide victory in congress and almost guaranteeing the next president to be a democrat. We could have vacated long ago and at least maintained the hope of a republican president to succeed. As it stands now... the only way I could see a republican end up there is if some combination of democrats all fight for the seat. Hillary, obama, and kerry on different independent tickets. Thanks Perot.

But know this, I'm starting to feel like I'm not debating with someone actually interested in discussion. I reply to your posts with quotes from sources like New York Times, wikipedia, CIA website and resolutions themselves. The suggestion that there is some kind of conspiracy theory changes your debate from objective to nothing more than biased Bush bashing rhetoric. If that's the case, let me know in advanced and I'll not waste my time.

The current situation could have happened to ANY party given the response to inaccurate intelligence. You're quick with the condemnations... that seems to imply you have a solution in mind that differs from what is happening now. For the sake of argument: If you landed in the oval office today, what would be your next plan of action after granting yourself a pardon at BrownCafe?


And to get back on track of my initial statement, I'm not here to establish "guilt". As I said in my original post, assignment of guilt is irrelevant to the situation. That will be hashed out in history. We're in Iraq, how do we get out?

Agreed, we're not high on the popularity list for the world. Nor have we lost anymore buildings since 9/11.

My computer has been down for a few weeks and I hop on a friend's computer the first chance I get to pay bills and browse around and when I come to see what has become of this thread I'm knocked out of my socks by what I see. What the hell happened here? lol

Back to the original topic...Isn't anyone else concerned that "Americans" are protesting their own military?

I have a hard time telling Americans they don't have the freedom to protest those who are protecting their freedom to protest. I don't like it, but I support their right to do it.

 

[tonyexpress]

Canon,

I must say I agree with you 100%. Thanks for making my point of view more clear to me.

 

[canon]

Canon,

I must say I agree with you 100%. Thanks for making my point of view more clear to me.

Shew! I was beginning to think I was alone lol.

 

[Jones]

Canon,

Feel free to quote Ari Fleischer, but let's keep in mind that he's not an independent legal scholar giving an objective analysis. He was the White House press secretary, and his job was to justify the administration's actions. In other words, just because Ari says it doesn't make it so.

UN resolution 678 was drafted specifically to enforce UN resolution 660, which was drafted specifically to demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait back in 1990. Yeah, you can try and make the argument that the line in 678 about "subsequent resolutions" is enough to justify the invasion of 2003, but it's nowhere near the solid case that Fleischer tried to make it into. Not even close. The UN didn't buy it, and refused to authorize the use of force. There's absolutely no point in citing UN resolutions as justification for your actions if you're not going accept the UN's authority in ruling on them. It's like a prosecutor who, after failing to get a guilty conviction from the court, say's "screw it, I'm hanging the guy anyway".

 

[canon]

Canon,

Feel free to quote Ari Fleischer, but let's keep in mind that he's not an independent legal scholar giving an objective analysis. He was the White House press secretary, and his job was to justify the administration's actions. In other words, just because Ari says it doesn't make it so.

It's a legitimate source. Or are you saying the govt doesn't employ a legal team? And just because you disagree with the legalities of our actions doesn't mean we violated international law. Like I said, I understand there are two positions on the subject. Trying to discredit the source doesn't invalidate the actions.. I think we both know that would be a logical fallacy.

UN resolution 678 was drafted specifically to enforce UN resolution 660, which was drafted specifically to demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait back in 1990. Yeah, you can try and make the argument that the line in 678 about "subsequent resolutions" is enough to justify the invasion of 2003, but it's nowhere near the solid case that Fleischer tried to make it into. Not even close. The UN didn't buy it, and refused to authorize the use of force.

I know why R.678 was drafted. I don't need to "try" to make it into anything, it says what it says. If you need me to post it again, I'll be happy to.

There's absolutely no point in citing UN resolutions as justification for your actions if you're not going accept the UN's authority in ruling on them. It's like a prosecutor who, after failing to get a guilty conviction from the court, say's "screw it, I'm hanging the guy anyway".

If we do accept the UN's authority, we also have to give weight to the resolutions already written. We acted under UN authority granted in UN R.678. So if you want to say the UN had no authority in writing that, then they also have no authority in denying the use of force. I think you're looking for a double standard that only condemns the actions of a republican president.

Again, and this time in english... assigning "guilt" doesn't address the problem of getting out of Iraq.

 

[Slothrop]

Canon,

If you read my last post, it was addressed to wkmac. It was not meant as an answer to your post.

I will answer your post in detail when I have time.

I do want you to know that I don't consider statements made by the WH Press Sec as gospel, nor do I accept editorials written by AEI & PNAC members to be the final word.

Bottom line is, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force, and they did not in this case. You may also want to read some informed commentary from a legal point of view. May I suggest: jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/index.htm as a starting point.

I'll make an effort to give you the full response you deserve in the next day or so.

Regards,

Tyrone Slothrop

 

[Jones]

It's a legitimate source. Or are you saying the govt doesn't employ a legal team? And just because you disagree with the legalities of our actions doesn't mean we violated international law. Like I said, I understand there are two positions on the subject. Trying to discredit the source doesn't invalidate the actions.. I think we both know that would be a logical fallacy.

I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate source, nor am I trying to discredit anyone. Are you saying that Fleischer came up with that reasoning on his own? I am fully aware that the govt has a "legal team", but what does that have to do with anything? You seemed to be quoting the press secretary in particular as if the fact that he said something gave it added weight, my point was that he's simply the public face of the adminstration and the argument doesn't gain any credibility because he repeated it. If, on the other hand, someone who was versed in international law and had no dog in this particular fight made the argument it would be a different story.

I know why R.678 was drafted. I don't need to "try" to make it into anything, it says what it says. If you need me to post it again, I'll be happy to.

If you know why it was drafted, I have to ask why you are quoting Fleischer? He's no more an authority than you or I. And no, you don't have to post any more quotes from Ari Fleischer, we can all read the resolutions.

If we do accept the UN's authority, we also have to give weight to the resolutions already written.

I'm not sure you want to go down that road, at least if you're concerned about Israel's current borders. I personally have no desire to see 242 implemented.

We acted under UN authority granted in UN R.678. So if you want to say the UN had no authority in writing that, then they also have no authority in denying the use of force.

I never said any such thing, and why would I? It's all very well for you to claim we acted under UN authority, but if that was the case then why was General Powell at the UN trying to convince them(unsuccessfully) to authorise the use of force that you say they had already authorised? It seems like a rather backwards way of going about things.

I think you're looking for a double standard that only condemns the actions of a republican president.
Again, and this time in english... assigning "guilt" doesn't address the problem of getting out of Iraq.

Was this last directed at me? If so I'm honestly not sure what it is in reference to. I agree with you that assigning "guilt" won't get us out of Iraq though, so there's a positive .

Take care

 

[Jones]

My computer has been down for a few weeks and I hop on a friend's computer the first chance I get to pay bills and browse around and when I come to see what has become of this thread I'm knocked out of my socks by what I see. What the hell happened here? lol

Back to the original topic...Isn't anyone else concerned that "Americans" are protesting their own military?

We have managed to drag your thread a little off topic. I remember when you first posted it, you said you heard about it on Fox news, so I went to their website and checked around but I couldn't find any reference to the story. I might have been looking in the wrong place though. I haven't heard it any where else so my sense of it is that if this is in fact occuring, it's a fairly isolated incident.

I think protesting the military is wrongheaded, they don't set policy after all, so protesting the military shows a real lack of understanding about how things work.

I guess I would be more concerned if they weren't allowed to protest, as it is I think they're just badly misinformed. Which makes them typically American. It's not a crime to be ignorant.

 

[canon]

I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate source, nor am I trying to discredit anyone. Are you saying that Fleischer came up with that reasoning on his own? I am fully aware that the govt has a "legal team", but what does that have to do with anything? You seemed to be quoting the press secretary in particular as if the fact that he said something gave it added weight, my point was that he's simply the public face of the adminstration and the argument doesn't gain any credibility because he repeated it. If, on the other hand, someone who was versed in international law and had no dog in this particular fight made the argument it would be a different story.

Hmm, not sure how you could not see your attempt to discredit the source. You say he has a dog in this particular fight, and that he is not a legal scholar. Agreed, he is the press secretary. By your own admission just a messenger and therefore not as reliable as someone who has no dogs in this fight or a legal scholar. When I said it was a logical fallacy, it falls under the fallacy ad hominem (attacking the person):

A says X.
B attacks A.
X is wrong.

Fleischer says "blah blah blah".
Jones says Fleischer isn't knowledgeable.
"Blah blah blah" is wrong.

To remind you of your original statement: Feel free to quote Ari Fleischer, but let's keep in mind that he's not an independent legal scholar giving an objective analysis.

Bugs Bunny is neither real nor a scientist, but if he declared the earth orbits the sun it isn't automatically wrong because he isn't an authority. The statement itself receives the scrutiny, not the messenger. And we both know that's a decision for the courts. Admittedly, there aren't many in favor of claiming it was legal. I still stand on the grounds that R.678 provides all the legal grounds necessary for an end to the cease fire. But you already knew that.

If you know why it was drafted, I have to ask why you are quoting Fleischer? He's no more an authority than you or I. And no, you don't have to post any more quotes from Ari Fleischer, we can all read the resolutions.

The post from Fleischer only pointed out the whitehouse take on things in response to slothrops post. Again with the discrediting.. and how dare you discredit me. For all you know I might be teaching international law from the rear bumper of my truck on lunch breaks.

I'm not sure you want to go down that road, at least if you're concerned about Israel's current borders. I personally have no desire to see 242 implemented.

You're right. We should just create them and forget them. It's mighty convenient that only some are deemed worthy of upholding when it supports a particular goal.

I never said any such thing, and why would I? It's all very well for you to claim we acted under UN authority, but if that was the case then why was General Powell at the UN trying to convince them(unsuccessfully) to authorise the use of force that you say they had already authorised? It seems like a rather backwards way of going about things.

Trying to gain international support is backwards? The resolution granted authority and specific definitions for when force was warranted, the UN shouldn't have needed prying. Out of curiosity, how do you see the handling of the resolutions on the part of the UN? It wasn't long after any of the resolutions were drafted that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the world and testing the waters with targeting our aircraft. Do you lay any blame at the feet of the UN for not taking control of the issue way back in Clinton days? Bush sort of inherited quite a mess didn't he?

Was this last directed at me? If so I'm honestly not sure what it is in reference to. I agree with you that assigning "guilt" won't get us out of Iraq though, so there's a positive .
Take care

Cool, we find common ground. The last statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, rather the whole "Bush is a criminal" crowd collectively.

To me this whole argument looks like this:

*Coalition attacks Iraq based on authority granted in 678.
*World condemns Coalition and claims there was no authority.
*UN authority only resides in resolutions and decisions which condemn the actions.

For some reason, I tend to see the greatest opponents to the war have always been the biggest proponents for Gore/Kerry. Is this true in your case? It doesn't discredit your statements, so feel free to answer truthfully. Understandably, that number is growing to include those who once supported Bush. Maybe it reflects the release of Gore's movie... you know how easily persuaded America is by celebrity. He's like Obi-Won now: His presidential dreams extinguished by the evil Darth Bush... but now more powerful in his after-political life.



And why is it nobody wants to answer the question: how do we get out?
Seems the world is full of critics with nothing more useful than signs on sticks. I'd love to hear one response to that.

 

[canon]

I will answer your post in detail when I have time.


Bottom line is, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force, and they did not in this case. You may also want to read some informed commentary from a legal point of view. May I suggest: jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/index.htm as a starting point.

I'll make an effort to give you the full response you deserve in the next day or so.

Regards,

Tyrone Slothrop

Cool, I look forward to it. I checked out the website, but found it rather lengthy and lacking pictures or fun puzzles. I'll stick with my un-informed commentary and at least wait for charges to be brought.

Take your time, I'll be here for at least another day.

 

[tonyexpress]

And why is it nobody wants to answer the question: how do we get out?
Seems the world is full of critics with nothing more useful than signs on sticks. I'd love to hear one response to that.

We get out when the Iraqi army can protect it's people from the jihadist. As long as there is progress on their part to move forward everyday then we need to assist them. If they don't work hard for their own freedom then thats a different story. However if we leave before our job is done than what was the point? Just maybe all Iraqi's can achieve what the Kurds to the north have.

Did anybody see that piece on 60 minutes last Sunday about the Kurds living in peace in northern Iraq? This is what the rest of Iraq should aspire to. This also shows that muslims in this part of the world enjoy the freedoms of democracy.

Kurdistan: The Other Iraq

 

[Jones]

I'm not sure why leaving Iraq is always presented as this big complicated scenario that noone can figure out how to do. Basically you load everyone and their equipment onto planes and ships and head out. A phased, orderly withdrawal shouldn't take more than 6-9 months.

General Odom wrote an interesting Op-ed,
and followed up it up with an interview with Hugh Hewitt, a right wing radio host. I thought both were interesting and that Odom has a pretty pragmatic view of the situation.

For some reason, I tend to see the greatest opponents to the war have always been the biggest proponents for Gore/Kerry. Is this true in your case? It doesn't discredit your statements, so feel free to answer truthfully.

I tend to vote libertarian (my guy/gal never wins), but I'm not above voting for either of the major parties if I feel the the issues warrant it. Gore never impressed me as a politician, but I do think he's found his calling as a spokesperson for the enviroment. I hope he sticks with it and stays out of politics. Kerry always seems to have his foot firmly implanted in his mouth. He's an amusing fellow in that regard.

 

[canon]

We get out when the Iraqi army can protect it's people from the jihadist. As long as there is progress on their part to move forward everyday then we need to assist them. If they don't work hard for their own freedom then thats a different story. However if we leave before our job is done than what was the point? Just maybe all Iraqi's can achieve what the Kurds to the north have.
Kurdistan: The Other Iraq

Yes, that is exactly right.

I'm not sure why leaving Iraq is always presented as this big complicated scenario that noone can figure out how to do. Basically you load everyone and their equipment onto planes and ships and head out. A phased, orderly withdrawal shouldn't take more than 6-9 months.

You've already stated you condemn Bush for violating international law.
Now in this post, you support violating international law in favor of ending the war.

In any sense of the word, that is hypocrisy. The question remains: What would you do differently if you were to assume command today and avoid violating international law? Or do you now support the current efforts in adherance to international law with respect to the conquering/occupying force is responsible for security until the nation is capable of defending itself?

 

[Jones]

You've already stated you condemn Bush for violating international law.
Now in this post, you support violating international law in favor of ending the war.

In any sense of the word, that is hypocrisy. The question remains: What would you do differently if you were to assume command today and avoid violating international law? Or do you now support the current efforts in adherance to international law with respect to the conquering/occupying force is responsible for security until the nation is capable of defending itself?

Where are you getting all this stuff from? Can you point out to me where I condemned Bush for violating international law? I suspect you have me confused with your straw man.

While we are on the subject of international law though, perhaps you could point me toward the article that states it a violation to "end a war", or the one that says an occupying power "can't leave until certain conditions are met". Good luck with that .

Take care

 

[tonyexpress]

The reasons for overthrowing Saddam have changed as the fog that the Bushi'ites used to obfuscate the real reasons has been lifted. It was never about freeing a people, it has always been about a grand vision by people who have choosen to ignore history.
My greater concern is the position that their folly has left us in.

Our standing in the world community has been tarnished badly. Those who were once our friends no longer trust us. The big winners in this fiasco will likely be the Russians and the Chinese. Their influence is rising rapidly.

Democrats disingenuous in their anti-war rhetoric

So instead of self-serving attacks on the present administration, Democratic senators and candidates should simply confess that while most of the earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.


But they should remember one final consideration. The next time a Democratic administration makes a case for using America's overwhelming military force to preempt a Milosevic or a mass murderer in Darfur - and history suggests that one will - the Democrats' own present disingenuous anti-war rhetoric may come back to haunt them, ensuring that such future humanitarian calls will probably fall on ears as deaf as they are partisan.

 

[Slothrop]

Mr. *******, you have a knack of using immpecable sources.

Werther: Victor Davis Hanson, Bard of the Booboisie
Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems. To picture anything remotely as bad as his pseudo-historical novels and propaganda tracts, one would have to imagine an account of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration authored by Paris Hilton.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno's contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

 

[Slothrop]

Canon,

I have reread your postings and have come to the conclusion that nothing I can say can sway your support of the present administration. Those who want war will find ways to justify it.

In the interest of brevity, I would like to direct you to a couple of articles I’ve run across while researching your claims.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/BuildingTheCase.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,915579,00.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20120925192809/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
https://web.archive.org/web/20131102041823/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php

I believe the above articles will point out the fallacies of your reasoning much better than I can.

One last quote from Wiki:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

 

[canon]

Where are you getting all this stuff from? Can you point out to me where I condemned Bush for violating international law? I suspect you have me confused with your straw man.

Jones... slothrop...wkmac... you act like there's a difference. You're right, I might have had you confused with the person in this conversation:

And just because you disagree with the legalities of our actions doesn't mean we violated international law.

If, on the other hand, someone who was versed in international law and had no dog in this particular fight made the argument it would be a different story.

I think you posted a link to the wrong straw man.

While we are on the subject of international law though, perhaps you could point me toward the article that states it a violation to "end a war", or the one that says an occupying power "can't leave until certain conditions are met". Good luck with that .

Take care

I thought you knew me better than that. This is from Human Rights Watch (hwr.org). If you don't think this is credible, feel free to do your own research and provide any corrections. I highlighted the ones that might be of importance. Believe me when I say I could have cited from the original sources, but felt this addresses certain things we're currently doing there. I've done this a time or two. Good luck with this:

The War in Iraq and International Humanitarian Law
Frequently Asked Questions on Occupation (FAQ)

(Last updated on May 16, 2003)
The following FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) analyzes international humanitarian law with respect to belligerent occupation. It does not attempt to cover the issue of occupation comprehensively, but focuses on those issues that might arise during the occupation of Iraq by the United States and its allies.

The FAQ is based primarily on the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and customary international humanitarian law.

Click here for a PDF version of this document with legal citations.

Belligerent Occupation

Question: What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law underlying military occupation?

International humanitarian law provides that once an occupying power has assumed authority over a territory, it is obliged to restore and maintain, as far as possible, public order and safety. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power must also respect the fundamental human rights of the territory's inhabitants, including refugees and other non-citizens.

Four basic principles of international law underlie an occupation:
1) The occupying power does not, through occupation, gain sovereignty over the occupied territory.
2) Occupation is considered a transitory phase in which the rights of the population must be respected by the occupying power until formal authority is restored.
3) When exercising authority, the occupying power must take into account the interests of the inhabitants as well as military necessity.
4) The occupying power must not use its authority to exploit the population or local resources for the benefit of its own population and territory.

Security in Occupied Areas

Question: What are the duties of an occupying force to provide security?

An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Under customary international law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory -- that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).

Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population under their control or subject to their authority. The occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, such as newly formed armed groups or forces of the former regime. Ensuring local security includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.

Sometimes I feel like the only person with access to Google.

Let the protests continue... we're still going to be there until it is determined Iraq can defend itself.

 

[Jones]

You're going to have to explain to me how this:

If, on the other hand, someone who was versed in international law and had no dog in this particular fight made the argument it would be a different story.

Translates into this:

You've already stated you condemn Bush for violating international law.

I'm just not seeing it. I swear you're just beating that straw man of your's to death, glad I'm not him....

Sometimes I feel like the only person with access to Google.

No, but you are the only person who seems to think that whatever Human Rights Watch says in their FAQ is tantamount to International Law. Or perhaps they were just the first google result you could find who had an interpretation of International Law that sorta fit (if you close one eye and squint real hard) with your erroneous statement:

Or do you now support the current efforts in adherance to international law with respect to the conquering/occupying force is responsible for security until the nation is capable of defending itself?

Even Human Rights Watch doesn't go that far. From your own post:

Occupation is considered a transitory phase in which the rights of the population must be respected by the occupying power until formal authority is restored.

"Respecting the rights of the population" doesn't translate into "you're not allowed to leave or it will be a violation on International Law"

Believe me when I say I could have cited from the original sources

You didn't quote from the original sources because you know as well as I do that they don't support you at all. Allow me:

From the Geneva Conventions, Article 6:

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53,
59, 61 to 77, 143.

You can read all the relevant articles here, though I'm sure you already have.

In other words, once we are no longer an occupying power we are not bound by the laws governing an occupying power (why does seem so obvious to everyone but you?). In addition there is no prohibition in the Geneva Conventions or anywhere else against us leaving, regardless of the situation.

I gotta give credit to the administration for not making that ridiculous argument, can you imagine President Bush getting on TV and saying "My fellow citizens, I was planning to bring the troops home, but my Legal Team has just informed me that we can't because it would be a violation of International Law"

Take Care

 

[tonyexpress]

Mr. *******, you have a knack of using immpecable sources.

Why thank you!!

Werther: Victor Davis Hanson, Bard of the Booboisie
Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems. To picture anything remotely as bad as his pseudo-historical novels and propaganda tracts, one would have to imagine an account of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration authored by Paris Hilton.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno's contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

I know we've previously discussed your use of ad hominem arguments. I guess you can't dispute the information so you're trying to discredit the source.