The difference between the left and the right:

I do believe that any question concerning Medieval History which arises could be profitably be referred to you, Professor Hobibit. I do believe that expertise is usually better than no expertise. Experts have, of course , been wrong but not as often and as consistenly as tyros.

I didn't read Judge Posner's book.

But what did qualify him - as a jurisprudent - to make such statements outsite his own field?
(He was an English major, graduated Harvard Law School and is/was a professor of law , as far as I know.)

Congratulations, Italgato. The last couple of posts of yours were informative without being acrimonious, confrontational without being rude, and it was actually a pleasure to read something personal about you rather then others.

I encourage you to continue. I was on the verge of finally deciding to just tune you out. This new posting style holds some promise. Keep it up!

Italgato, have you read anyone besides this Posner person?

Professor Hobibit: I am sure you would agree that when we talk about the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Italy that Dante would be mentioned frequently.

When Intellectual commentators are mentioned and when Law matters are mentioned and when Bill Clinton's unfortunate legal trials are mentioned, there is no better commentator, IN MY OPINION, than Judge Posner.
Although his style could be described as difficult to follow, you should give him a chance.

And, as for my readings other than Posner, I really don't need to bore you and others on these posts but I really must point out that I have mentioned the following on these posts besides judge Richard Posner.

Paul Johnson

David McCullough's "Truman"

Dr. Greenstein's The Presidential Difference

Bob Woodward's Bush at War

Robert A. Bork's Slouching toward Gomorrah

Dean Rosovsky's "The University"

Andrew Thomas's "Clarence Thomas

Bob Woodward's Shadow

Eleanor Kerlow's Poisoned Ivy

and, last, but certainly not least- Thomas Sowell's magnificent- "Race and Culture"

I probably forgot to list all I have mentioned.

Thank You Btryfly. I appreciate that. I must tell you that if have been acrimonious it was only in response to being called names by others.

For high medieval Italy Dante , as well as Boccaccio and Petrarch are very important. Its late and I'm off to bed. Nighty night.

I must confess , Professor Hobibit, I have read little of Petrarch. I can't get past the first couple of pages on him.


I don't think anyone can avoid Boccaccio after they read his frightening account of "The Black Death".
Florence, my favorite city, was decimated.

Ok, boys back to the topic...

As I read Fisk's diatribe, I feel like I am reading propaganda from Al Jazeera instead of from a noted british journalist. Fisk's use of imagery and innuendo leaves me to believe that the US is the bad guy and the innocent Iraqi's are suffering immeasurably because of the US occupation.

Fisk says: "I couldn't help noticing the graffiti on a wall in Fallujah. It was written in Arabic, in a careful, precise hand, by someone who had taken his time to produce a real threat.

"He who gives the slightest help to the Americans," the graffiti read, "is a traitor and a collaborator."

He says this as though he is proud that the Iraqi's are still attacking the US instead of trying to rebuild their own country.

Fisk also says: To set up even yesterday's ambush required considerable planning, a team of perhaps 20 men and the ability to choose the best terrain for an ambush.

That is exactly what the Iraqis did. The embankment above the road gave the gunmen cover and a half-mile wide view of the US convoy. They must have known the Americans would have opened fire at anything that moved in the aftermath - indeed, the guerrillas probably hoped they would - and angry crowds in the town of Khaldiya were claiming last night that 20 Iraqi civilians had been wounded.

Again, Fisk seems almost proud of the skill these "guerrillas" show.

This is what upsets me. This is what upsets people like me. It makes me want to punch Fisk right in the eye. THAT is the topic of this thread. How does it make you feel when you read this? Happy that the US is getting a little what for? Angry that the US continues its occupation? or does it completely piss you off that some iraqi's are ruining the party for everyone?

How about sad that the US felt the need to flex its muscles and kill innocents? The Iraqis haev every right to atack the occupation forces. That doesn't mean I wish "coallition troops" ill, it just means that they are somewhere where they have no right to be. I blame the leadership in DC.

McGentrix,

I think you are projecting, I really don't see any pride in Fisk's words and if I did it would upset me as well.

It is my Opinion that as strange and irrational as it may seem that there are some Americans who are so full of hate for George W. Bush that they are not really very sad when they read of an attack on a convoy by the Baath organization.

How sad!

That partisanship would cheapen the lives of our brave military in Iraq.

But I must again point out that it is clear that former President Clinton clearly thought that Saddam was a threat to peace and that Saddam would build more weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION if the US did not stop him and that Saddam did indeed possess weapons of Mass destruction and that while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be intended casualties.

Clinton made almost every statement that Bush has made concering Iraq and Saddam.

I am sure that every new administation examines the intelligence gathered by the old one as well as the speeches and position papers of the previous administration.


As for McGentrix's feeling that Fisk is proud of what the Iraqis did is, IN MY OPINION, correct.

If one reads Fisk carefully the words," careful precise hand" "considerable planning" "Ability to choose the best terrain" are not phrases that would be written by anyone writing AN OBJECIVE NEWS STORY.
Words do have meaning and they do have nuances and it is my opinion that Fisk was almost happy the Americans were attacked.

Professor Hobibit says that the US felt the need to flex its muscles and kill innocents.

I feel oblliged to inform him that one Dec. 16th 1998, President Clinton who was certainly the most compassionate of men, a real liberals and a person who showed real empathy for people, said:

"While our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unitended military casualties"

Muscle flexing?

Killing innocents?

That's what Professor Hobibit said.

I don' t think that those who say that Clinton was the most compassionate President of the twentieth century would agree.

Clinton? Compassionate? Are you serious?
He's a politician!

You may be right- Professor Hobibit.

Professor Greenstein( not Judge Posner) Professor Greenstein, dean of the Presidential historians wrote in "The Presidential Difference"

P. 186

quote

"Despite the freedom that Clinton afforded his staff, he has not been the kind of president who is beloved by his aides. is associates found him difficult to advise, because of the inconstancy of his policy positions. He was also subject to fits of anger and became a source of embarrassment to thosoe ofhis aides who stood behind his denial of sexual involvement with Monica Lewinsky'

You may be right, Professor Hobibit.

Do you think his fits of anger prevented him from catching Osama?

He could have gotten him, you know!

I heard that Bill missed Osama because he was being fellated by Monica when he could have given the order.

Oh, well, we all have our vices. But didn't Monica say that he was compassionate or was it passionate?

What feelings does the article bring up for you, McGentrix, to justify your rage?

When I read it, I see it is clearly told from the point of view attributed by the author to the Iraqis. He specifically states that this point of view is not necessarily the truth - but that emotional reaction may well BECOME truth to the Iraqis affected - just as he infers that such a reaction BECAME truth to those who wanted war with Iraq. I think his witch hunt goes both ways.

I do not see that his comments about the skill shown by the guerillas is particularly admiring of them, any more than a history of WW II analysing the early effectiveness of Blitzkrieg would necessarily be admiring of the Nazis. What he IS conveying is that he thinks these guerillas were able to kill not only Americans, but support for them amongst local people, killed or wounded by them in reaction.

Clearly he is anti-war, and anti Bush and Blair, nonetheless, I do not get any sense that he is gloating about the horrible deaths caused by this attack - which is what I assume you to have perceived in his words, to anger you so?

Pardon me, Mcgentrix, if I have missed some further explanation of your reaction - I tried to read the whole thread - but only skimmed once I came to the weary devil-Clinton/devil-Bush stuff....

"ruining the party"?

American soldiers being killed is not a 'party'. Marauding Iraqis doesn't make me 'happy'.

And the only thing that 'pisses me off' is that a) none of it was necessary; and b) the people that forced it lied about it.

McG

What pisses me off is that anyone can refer to anything related to the attack on Iraq by the U.S. as a party.



edit: didn't see PDiddie here. I was trying to leap around the Clinton/Italgato stuff.

Gato won't answer you, Walter, so I will: Posner has no qualifications for determining who is and who isn't a "public intellectual." Posner himself admits as much: "The reader may sense here the paradox of self-reference," Posner confides. "Am I not an academic public intellectual?... I was a full-time academic and am still one part-time, writing out of my field.... I am aware that the arrows I shoot may curve in flight and hit the archer." (emphasis added).