Ad Hominem Attacks Are Totally Inappropriate David Horowitz, former liberal and noted author of "The Future of Freedom", and "How To Teach Your Ass To Talk The David Horowitz Way" wrote an op-ed which appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today. In his article, Mr. Horowitz lamented the "savage attacks" faced by President Bush. Although I've often disagreed with Mr. Horowitz's politics, I was sympathetic to his argument. For the sake of the nation, liberals and conservatives should unite to elevate the level of public discourse. A lesser man may be tempted to respond to Mr. Horowitz's comments with ad hominem attacks, but I'd rather discuss the merits of the ideas he expresses. The esteemed author of the poignant memoir "My Gay Lover John Ashcroft: Sometimes I Just Need To Be Held", deserves that much, I suppose. Using the refreshingly creative "rhetorical question to start an arguement" approach, David calls into question the reason why President Bush's popularity is plummeting: "...Why should the president be on the defensive over a war as good as this one?" A good war--interesting concept. Let's define the term. Good War: Any war David Horowitz is not fighting in; i.e. any war; A war where investments in the military-industrial complex increase substantially. How much money do you have in Halliburton stock, David? Every time you speak, you should have to declare how much money you've made since this 'good war' began. We could call it "War Profiteer Full Disclosure". The Paragon of Enlightenment continues.. "...Casualties were minimal, 25 million people were freed, and a brutal regime was dismantled -- a prison for children was liberated and mass graves stopped being filled...". Ahem...Excuse me. Casualties were minimal? We've lost more soldiers already than we lost in the first four years of the Vietnam war. Casualties were minimal? Why the past tense verb--this war is present continuous tense--or do you want to stand atop the Nimitz and say "Mission Accomplished" today? Casualties were minimal? As of today, 529 soldiers have died--I'm sorry--530 there was another today. We're losing a soldier a day? You call that minimal? Try telling that to a dead soldier's mother. --As far as the mass graves--they're still being filled--have innocent civilians ceased to die in Iraq? How many David? Are 10,000 people needlessly killed any less significant if they're buried in neat rows? 25 million people were freed...Just how free are they? Are they living in a stable, western-style democracy? Could the Iraqi Governing council last for even one minute without U.S. forces propping them up? Saying that 25 million people have been free is about as premature as calling the war over...To many Iraqis, the aftermath of the war seems like moving from the frying pan to the fire. The Factless Wonder continues... "Why should Bush have to apologize for a war that brought Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi to heel, made the Syrians and Iranians more pliant and has killed or taken into custody thousands of terrorist soldiers and allies"? Ahem...Brought them to heel? Made them more pliant? I can hardly sit down with all the monkeys flying out of my butt...David, does a leader 'brought to heel' buy nuclear weapons from the Pakistanis? Both Libya and Iraq have. They've learned from the North Korean paradigm. Namely, that the Bush regime only attacks countries without weapons of mass destruction. The rest of 'em have what card players refer to as a "bargaining position". By the way David, no matter what you've been told, bending over for corporate cash is not a bargaining position. "Saddam Hussein was given four months to prove he had destroyed the weapons that U.N. inspectors had already established that he possessed. These included thousands of tons of nerve gas, anthrax and other chemical and biological goodies. What became of these? No one knows". Exactly. Let's assume that you're right: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld--they never lied to us even once. Saddam did have tons of biological weapons, chemical weapons, and even nuclear weapons. Let's even assume that he had the ability to strike England within 45 minutes. Let's also assume that the war drew Al-Quieda into Iraq and that Syria is in cahoots with both groups. Let's also assume that Rumsfeld and Powell were telling the truth when they said that they knew Hussein had these weapons and they knew where they were. Wouldn't that mean that we've in effect transferred arms from Saddam Hussein to Al Quieda? Talk about blowback! What you think of as success, Mr. Horowitz, is looking like a pretty miserable failure to me. Ad Hominem attacks are totally inappropriate for serious editorialists, cheap hacks like you who've made a living out of smearing liberals, on the other hand, deserve the rhetorical equivalent of a Belfast six pack. Consider that a warning, Mr. Poopypants.