I think it is important to look at the character of a man and his past to see what sort of man he might be in the future. Hitler was a fantastic speaker, Stalin a remarkable leader.

Attacking the person, an ad hominem, is often invalid but not always. If I were to say “Henry Ford was a nazi sympathizer and, thus, if you drive a Ford you are akin to a Nazi.” That’s a BS ad hominem attack. But questioning a man’s past and personality in regards to his leadership ability when he is seeking leadership, that is not an ad hominem. If you praise the man’s principals, it is not absurd for someone else to question the motives behind those principals.

That is not an ad hominem.

That’s what called an ad hominem attack. Rather then responding to the discussion at hand, you are attacking the character of the person.

If I or anyone else responds to your smear we just legitimize your sidestepping of the issues.

You have sadly been sucked in by Mutambara’s ability to convince. It happened to me too last year but thankfully I have come to understand his true nature.

Please take this advice seriously - Arthur Mutambara is purely interested in his own power and well being. The only reason he is pushing the power sharing agreement implementation is that it will be his only and last chance of playing a leadership role in Zimbabwean politics and not because it is the only workable solution to the crisis. Mark my words - It is not possible for Mugabe to share power and no matter what he signs or agrees to, it will not work - he has to leave!

I have come to understand that Mutambara is mentally unstable and backs whatever position gives him the best chances of personal gain.

Please do more research on this unfortunate man before writing any more positive comments about him.

I am Zimbabwean and have been a part of the resistance movement for 8 years. I care deeply about our country and just wish to point out to you that you are mistaken in your summation of Mutambara.

Kind regards,
Monty