Over at OxBlog, Patrick Porter calls for civility
in the Iraq war debate. Wadda maroon. He clearly doesn't know that arguing rationally about the interpretation of the existing facts is totally pre-9/11 (it's one of the "everything" that changed dontcha know). Nowadays you attack the man, not the ball. Who'd want to read anything else? Oh, you'd rather go to symposiums at the New America Foundation. Sissy (also objectively pro-Islamonazi...)
Oddly, "warmonger" is one of the words Porter claims is an epithet. But if the term is used to describe someone who advocates a series of wars of choice, I'd say it's not so much an epithet as it is an apt description. "Proponent of robust Wilsonianism" just doesn't have the same ring to it. But what's a little semantic quibble between reasonable people?