> I think it worthwhile to distinguish between _ad hominem_ attacks and
> merely personal attacks, and I think DP's post is an instance of the
> latter. In my understanding, an _ad hominem_ attack tries to discredit a
> _position_ by discrediting the source of that position.
There is, by the way, an interesting ad hominem "attack" on George Bush currently on the Counterpunch.org website. The article is an attempt at a diagnosis by a psychiatrist, Carol Wolman, M.D. Among other possible diagnoses she mentions narcissism, in which the narcissist (Dubya) has overwelming problems with self-esteem and is also incapable of understanding another person's point-of-view.
I have long thought that Dubya is a classic narcissist. And Cheney and Rummy also. Nice to have some professional backup for my amateur shrink-work.
In a note to me (I had written her complimenting her on her courage in writing the article), Dr. Wolman said "He needs to be discredited. He's too dangerous."
I am all for ad hominem "attacks" on nuts in powerful positions. Given the current state of psychology, it would be very useful to have abundant well-researched discussions of the personalities of the powerful.
Actually just a thorough, serious discussion of Dubya's intellectual deficits would be useful.
Mike Ferro