Reatarded Seeming, Bush Loving War Lord I saw on Bill Maher Works at The (HERBERT) HOOVER institution

So I looked him up. No wonder Amerikkka can't read if this moron is what passes for a scholar.

In his recent National Review Online (NRO) article, The Paranoid Style / Iraq: Where socialists and anarchists join in with racialists and paleocons, former historian Victor Davis Hanson employs bad writing and cheap smears to defend his hero, George W. Bush, and his hero's war from domestic enemies of the Left and of the Right. Hanson begins his nasty little piece thusly:

It is becoming nearly impossible to sort the extreme rhetoric of the antiwar Left from that of the fringe paleo-Right. Both see the Iraqi war through the same lenses: the American effort is bound to fail and is a deep reflection of American pathology.

There are opponents of the war on the Left and the Right, but they do not in any way "see the Iraqi war through the same lenses." Telling the lefties from the righties is usually easy. Someone who says, "We need to bring our troops home from Iraq and put them on our border with Mexico," is probably a right-winger. Someone who says, "We need to bring the troops home and abolish war forever by smashing capitalism," is probably on the left. The badness of Hanson's writing is significant here. When members of well-established, diverse factions of American politics draw the same conclusion, having started from vastly different perspectives, we need to pause and ask what's going on. Unfortunately, VDH can interpret the commentary of others only through his own simplistic warmonger lens.

But it isn't for Hanson's intellectual failings that he deserves condemnation. It is for the cheap smears he directs at some of his fellow citizens. Hanson continues his article:

An anguished Cindy Sheehan calls Bush "the world's biggest terrorist." And she goes on to blame Israel for the death of her son ("Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel").

Her antiwar venom could easily come right out of the mouth of a more calculating David Duke. Perhaps that's why he lauded her anti-Semitism: "Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media."

Reckless accusations of anti-Semitism seem to come naturally to supporter's of war in Iraq. If Hanson believes Cindy Sheehan is an anti-Semite, he should offer some evidence. I share Ms. Sheehan's belief that the interests of Israel were instrumental in the decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Does that make me an anti-Semite? What if David Duke agreed with me? If someone -- anyone -- manages to insert the phrase "hostile Jewish supremacist media" into a sentence in which I am also mentioned, would that make me an "anti-Semite?" I don't expect Hanson to share Sheehan's opinions about things, but calling her an anti-Semite because of what David Duke said is a contemptible cheap smear. Shame on you, VDH!