It's great when you can ask the questions, provide the answers, justify your own logic, and ridicule the logic of the opposition by battering away at strawmen.

One example should suffice. After exposing the French and Russians for their oil-fixated interest in Iraq, Mr. Goldberg ridicules those who think the US of A is after that oil too:

"These people are either stoopid or they are trapped in a Twilight Zone where Thomas Nast cartoons seem real."

(Got that fallacy list handy?)

Mr. Goldberg then goes on to provide a litany of reasons why Pres. Bush could never pull off a caper like that: Why, everybody would blab, he says, and that would be that.

This kind of "argument" follows the form: he wouldn't do it because it couldn't be done, "logic" which may convince you, but it sure won't convince me.

Finally, I don't recall seeing any argument from Mr. Goldberg here for why we should wage war on Iraq.

Articulating that argument is a little more difficult that whaling away at strawmen.

'nuff said.
sp