Ace wonders why the nutroots has a bug up its ass about Goldstein, then answers his own question. Unfairly, of course. Read his post; now I ask you, does that sound like any leftist you’ve ever met?

The usual suspects will scoff extravagantly, but as they say, you know you’re over the target when you start taking flak. Ace actually neglects to mention the smoking gun — namely, their creepy preoccupation with Goldstein’s use of anti-anxiety medication. Not content to hate him, they try to disqualify him from the debate altogether by portraying him as unstable. Why, you’d have to be mad to be an intellectual who opposes progressivism!

Ace overlooked something else, although he almost reached it here:

When progressives talk about the oppressed, those who died in Katrina, have no doubt– they’re mostly talking about themselves. They are the ones who are concerned, who worry for the fate of this Republic. To borrow Goldstein’s schtick– the text of their expressions of outrage and compassion is merely a complex system of signifiers for the true authorial intent, the subtext, or maybe even the supertext, that they are among the chosen.

Indeed — and among the chosen, insulting Goldstein is itself a signifier. Take, for example, this guy. He floats some boilerplate about Haditha and “collective guilt,” then nails it down with the obligatory misrepresentative shot at Goldstein. He’s practically begging Glenn Greenwald to pat him on the head, which is what every new reference to Jeff being a “paste-eating wanker” who’s out of his gourd from Klonopin is ultimately about: acceptance from the group and reassurance that JG poses no threat.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the reason they have such a collective hard-on for Goldstein is because … they don’t find him threatening? Doesn’t add up, but it’s something to ponder while they prepare the next dozen posts dismissing him as a head case who’s wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

As for our feud (I should say, my feud) with the Jawa Report (I should say, Vinnie of the Jawa Report), it has to do with Haditha. We’re covering it, notwithstanding the fact that charges haven’t been filed yet, and in so doing, says Vinnie, we’ve made the ghost of the Ayatollah Khomeini smile. Here’s his original post wondering why Michelle is so concerned with Marines allegedly shooting Iraqi toddlers in the head when, in fact, infants are murdered in America every day. He theorizes it’s because she’s trying to get out in front of the story before the left can accuse her of indifference. And who would doubt it? If there’s anyone who trembles at the prospect of leftist tongue-clucking, it’s Michelle Malkin.

I responded to Vinnie in a comment to that post. I didn’t respond in kind, though: to do that, I’d have to accuse him of operating from bad-faith motives of his own — like, for instance, being pissed at the fact that jihadis are using the allegations as propaganda but taking it out on people like Michelle and me, who clearly aren’t. Anyway, Vinnie has a new post this morning replying to my comment. He accuses me of linking to a post Michelle wrote yesterday defending the Marines — a post which was written after he criticized her. My apologies; I should have linked to this post, written the day before his. Read it for yourself. Tell me where you think it would point on the Khomeini smile-o-meter.

Vinnie then accuses us of … I’m not sure what, really. Not supporting troops who kill babies, I think:

I think we should wait until the convictions are pronounced.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I’ll tell you why it’s so hard. Because people are staking their reputations for supporting the troops on this Haditha story. If Marines engaged in the unjustified killings of civilians in Haditha, then they look bad for supporting baby killers.

They just want to make it clear that they don’t support baby killers. Never
mind that it’s a war.

To be clear: no one here, and no one I’ve read on the right, has said anything about not supporting the war or the soldiers fighting it because of what might have happened in Haditha. Lt. Smash puts it well. Greyhawk said the same thing a few days earlier while linking to Oliver Willis, of all people. The thought of which would probably make Khomeini laugh sinisterly, in vintage Mr. Burns fashion.

Vinnie concludes by calling me and everyone else covering this “fucking reprobates,” so there you have it. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go write a new post about Haditha.

Update: The Commissar responds to Vinnie with a fine distinction.

Update: Jeff passes on the chance to defend himself, preferring instead of defend another paste-eating headcase academic. Ah, but does Professor Geras take care of his infant son during the day? Because that’s the mark of a true wanker.