Blogfeuds: Hot Air vs. Jawa Report, Jeff Goldstein vs. pretty much every lefty blogger in America

posted at 11:16 am on June 1, 2006 by Allahpundit

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.

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I don’t know about you guys, Bloggers boys and gals, but I love NASCAR.

Cool it down!

Beer anyone?

CatholicConservative on June 1, 2006 at 11:39 AM

Yup… it’s high school again. Just call him a nerd, dweeb, loser… whatever and get over it.
That, or stop all of the whining, set up a meeting, and beat the crap out of each other. Whoever wins was right. Isn’t that how this works?

Sugar Land on June 1, 2006 at 11:44 AM

Can’t we all just blog along?

BirdEye on June 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM

Generally speaking Jawa has a point. The fact of the matter is that, unless you think the Military can’t handle the matter effectively on their own, Haditha really isn’t news.

Does it deserve SOME attention? Sure – but not the amount Hot Air is giving it.

Even if it turns out to be the worst you could imagine it means absolutely zip – zero – nada when it comes to the overall situation over there. There is no direct challenge to the Iraqi Government in existence – just more crazy-ass nut-jobs blowing up civilians, and we’ve seen how well that’s worked for the Jihadis in convincing people to help them establish a new Caliphate over the past… oh I dunno… half-century or so. Hasn’t done sh*t for them.

This ain’t Viet Nam with another Coherent Governmental entity threatening to replace the Democratic Government we support – it’s just more wackos who hate the world, and the world hates them.

So see Haditha through? Sure. Get your panties in a wad about it and let the fruitcakes control the talking points? No.

venmax on June 1, 2006 at 11:59 AM

I agree (I think with most folks on the right) that we need to be very careful in our coverage of the Haditha incident. We know that a Marine unit was ambushed with an IED, that one Marine died and tow more were injured, and that in the aftermath of that event, two dozen Iraqis were killed including women and children.

Two investigations have been launched by the NCIS. One investigation is focusing on the killing of the civilians to determine if a crime has been committed, and if so, determine who to charge, and with what offenses. The second investigation is apparently tasked with determining if a cover-up of the incident was attempted, and if so, determine who to charge, and with what offenses.

People have varying levels of comfort in discussing this case, brought about, perhaps, by the intemperate and inflammatory remarks of “ex-Marine” John Murtha, who stepped well beyond where he should have, assigning both guilt and motive more than 60 days in advance of the release of the report of the investigation, in advance of anyone being charged, and well in advance of any trial. Murtha has forgone due process to play politics with the lives of up to a Marines, and beyond that, went on to suggest that murdering civilians was U.S. military policy and that the highest levels of the military were instrumental in a cover-up that apparently never was.

Because Murtha would not allow this investigation to proceed at a natural pace, and insisted on rushing to judgement, we now find ourselves with a story that we almost have to comment on.

But I think we can agree that there are right ways and wrong ways to cover this. Pre-supposing guilt for specific crimes as so many of the center-left blogs have done is wrong, but it is permissible and perhaps even our duty—if bloggers can be said to have a duty—to attempt to provide the context of the situation as best we can as evidence allows.

We should be very careful and try to remain objective, however, and follow what I will dub “The Anti-Nancy Law.”

Nancy Grace, that Vanderkinder on CNN, and others in the “drive-by media” immediately presupposed the guilt of the Duke Lacrosse team well before the first charges were filed, and they’ve been forced to backtrack ever since, but not before ruining the reputation of the accused.

We should try to comport ourselves with care, try to stick to the facts, and when we opine, make sure people know that we are sharing an opinion, not a fact. If we do that, there is no reason we cannot discuss this case within certain boundaries, and leaving the anti-military, anti-war left to spin this in a vacuum devoid of competing ideas, as Vinnie seems to suggest, is counterproductive for all.

Bob Owens on June 1, 2006 at 12:00 PM

This is what you get when the “Egos of the Anonymous” collide!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 1, 2006 at 12:00 PM

“Can’t we all just blog along?”

BirdEye on June 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM



For the sake of blog.

Cocaine anyone?

CatholicConservative on June 1, 2006 at 12:03 PM

Speculation about Haditha, and what did or did not happen, is nothing but a disservice to the Marines involved. What does denouncing the Marines ahead of time accomplish? Nothing except the establishment of the “moral superiority” of the denouncer.

What’s going on in the blogosphere now is a bit of deja vu. When the story about USMC LT Ilario Pantano first started circulating, all the conservatives bloggers rallied in his defense. UNTIL…his accuser, a fellow Marine, came forward with specific charges. You could’ve heard a pin drop in the blogosphere. Those same conservatives that had sallied forth in Pantano’s defense now were strangely silent, or even worse, mouthing platitudes like “Well, IF it’s true…” NO ONE stood by Pantano throughout the pre-court martial drudgery (except us – his loudmouth advocates), preferring instead to “wait and see”, ‘cuz damn – “if he was guilty, he’d need to fry.” (There’s that safe IF, IF, IF.) The Pantano story was dropped like a hot potato.

UNTIL…Pantano was cleared and the charges were dismissed. Ohhhh – happy day in the blogosphere again! Cries of “YAY, Pantano, we were with you all the way, buddy!” now resounded across the internet. Right. Ilario himself knows what’s what.

We have a highly unpopular view on the events in Haditha. Bottom line: we will never set ourselves up as judge, jury, and executioner of those Marines. Ne-ver. Personally, I’ll refrain from judging a man under fire. His military command will do that – they have the legal and moral right to do so, and he’s subject to it. But the rest of us are just background noise.

Point of caution: to speculate about the [unknown] actions of the Marines or to piously decry that in general the “murdering of innocents is wrong and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms” (no shit?!) sets you up as their moral superiors. And who are y’all to judge?

Redhead Infidel on June 1, 2006 at 12:07 PM

I thought Vinnie had some good points yesterday as I stated on another thread, but I do think he needs to tone down the invective and save it for more deserving targets (e.g., Kos crowd). And Allah shouldn’t get into a pissing contest with him either, especially since we all know that both of you (and Michelle as well) support the troops and support the war effort.

Take a deep breath everybody.

thirteen28 on June 1, 2006 at 12:21 PM

I think Hotair is just responding the accusation Murtha has launched against our marines. This is big in MSM. Hotair has to cover it and blog along.

It is all Murtha’s fault.


easy87us on June 1, 2006 at 12:23 PM

We need a new blog word. Like ‘blegging’ for begging or favors, we need one for jealousy.(maybe you already have one)
…..Maybe BLENVY….
You are intelligent, interesting & hard working, but a strange bunch. Pefect for our reading needs!

shooter on June 1, 2006 at 12:48 PM

As long as we’re goin deep in thought today…
.(1) An unforgivably ugly sounding word.
.(2) A collection of writings which usually lives up to the sound.
.(1) A diarist in search of an audience.
.(2) A patient in search of a therapist but unable to pay by the hour.
BLOGGING: The act of pissing in the wind without experiencing relief to the bladder.
More levity at
Caution:this site refers to the Al LA Times, dont get lost.

shooter on June 1, 2006 at 1:02 PM

“Why, you’d have to be mad to be an intellectual who opposes progressivism!”

Allahpundit & all, please don’t refer to such a regressive/archaic/puerile/simplistic bunch as “progressive”. Quit honoring this high-faluting term they gave themselves.

There is nothing progressive about:

– not fighting for women’s rights for millions (Middle East, Africa, parts of Asia, etc.)
– being for socialism/communism
– suppressing free speech, unless it is yours (universities, city council of LA, ACLU of late, etc.)
– being an elitist while preaching submissiveness to all others
– living the jet life, while preaching conservation to the rest of us
– and so much more…

Entelechy on June 1, 2006 at 1:59 PM

You’ll find a lot of good comments on Haditha at the anti-idiotarian Rottweiller

Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)

Rowane on June 1, 2006 at 4:01 PM