More anti-liberal invective from antiwar.com

Response email to 'backtalk' at antiwar.com after I read this article:

"Some of the ditzier liberals have been quite upset at this turn of events."

The 'ditzier liberals' link doesn't feature any liberals who talk about Plamegate. It features a couple of conservative writers, Miller's lawyer, a representative of the conservative/statist New York Times, and some others.

This attack on liberals - much like the U.S. attack on Iraq's massive and mighy Republican Guard - is ficticious; that is, the foe does exist in some form, but it is neither massive nor mighty. Yet this attack-the-liberals sequence is a consistent feature of Raimondo's work. Bash the 'whiny liberals', bash neocons, the War Party - anyone and everyone but the people who supported both Bush elections - like conservative Republican Pat Buchanan, not Republicans, in general, and certainly not conservatives, in general. It's the liberals who should be despised, you see, because they are neither extremist pro-war, nor extremist anti-war. They're not one hundred percent certain of their righteousness, and therefore deserve to be relegated to 'whiny' status.

Raimondo's otherwise-solid analytical pieces are often interrupted by anti-liberal invective that gives pause to anyone, like myself, who is attempting to work in good faith with folks of all stripes, even with Reagan-worshipers like Raimondo, to defeat imperialism. Instead of wanting to run out and promote antiwar.com and Raimondo's work, we're pushed to write another tired critique of another tired attack piece on 'whiny liberals'. From reading Raimondo's work, one would think it was the liberals who had control of our government. To borrow a favorite Raimondo phrase, 'Bizarro World'.

You won't see a critique of conservative/Republican talking points on Miller that dominate the airwaves - on how the jailing of Miller is an outrage, how an overzealous special prosecutor is out of control, how Judy Miller should not be punished, but rather given a medal of honor. Why?

My best guess used to be repressed anti-liberal desires that work in Raimondo's subconcious to get in at least one anti-liberal screed per article. But now I'm coming to the conclusion, however late in coming, that this is just partisan hackery, plain and simple. Not every Republican needs to be filthy rich, perhaps, but they all want to feel as if they've done their part in defeating the liberal insurgency at home. Down with the freedom-hating ACLU! - that will always win hearts and minds of Republican friends.

Raimondo's piece suggests that that protestations over Miller's jailing were coming primarily from liberals. It's as if the party that currently controls our government and has the most, by far, to lose with a successful investigation (Hint: It's not the Democrats) doesn't even exist in Raimondo's mind. Or maybe they've been silent about Judith Miller, happy to have her jailed as special prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald comes ever-closer to indicting many top-level conservatives in the current administration. This is not a reality-based article.

Raimondo is entitled to write whatever he wants, and he's entitled to continue the titanic battle in his mind between himself and the vast - and quite powerful, mind you - left wing conspiracy, but it doesn't most effectively serve the purpose of defeating imperialism and promoting freedom. That's why I've wasted yet more of my precious time trying to point out the glaring hypocrisy in Raimondo's work. The work ends up lacking intellectual honesty, comes off as cheap partisan hackery, and helps the Rethugs keep a clear message from resonating with our fellow citizens.

It's time to join forces. The cold war is over - if it ever existed. There'll be plenty of time to jump to the other side again when you need that retirement nestegg. Regnery publishing and the cable news networks are not going away. The ACLU and those bad liberals won't hurt you anymore - I promise.