Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
"It's worth noting, though, that many of the authors' critical portraits rely on private conversations and anonymous sources. The most damning informants in these books are never identified and so can't be questioned."
So what else is new? Liberal "journalists" have always relied on techniques like that to protect themselves from being exposed as liars.
Here's what I want to know. The democrats are saying that it was Government Incompetence that kept us from "succeeding in Iraq".
But didn't they oppose the war because they thought it couldn't succeed? Didn't James Webb say before the war that the idea of an invasion itself was a disaster, that there was no way we could win?
If there was no way for this to turn out good, how could it now be the "way we are fighting the war" that has prevented it from succeeding?
Where is the proposal for how it would have succeeded?
I think it's funny that people I argued with before the war about how it would turn out bad are now arguing that if we had just done something different AFTER the war everything would have turned out great.
Bar room gossip belongs in tabloids and should be accorded the same respect as Michael Moore's trash.