It is written that there is nothing new under the sun. Some 2,421 years ago, a politician convinced a powerful democracy that in order to defend itself from an enemy that had attacked it, it was necessary to attack an enemy that had not attacked it. In the event that the analogy I am drawing here is not immediately apparent to the reader, the relevant comparisons are Athens to America, al Qaida plus Saudi Arabia plus Iran to Sparta, and Iraq to Syracuse.
Day then outlines his case by showing historical parallels of fallen empires which used reasons similar to those used by Bush to our current foreign policy. While those of us opposed to the war in Iraq already get it, I believe this is a good read for the few real conservatives still defending Bush.
(sidebar to our favorite debating site commenter: See, I used religion in both a positive and neutral light today. I’m not opposed to religion, merely to blind adherence to dogma — be it religious, social or political.)