’s Just-in a panic!

By WND Staff

While the New York office of Accuracy in Media was hailing my recent article “‘Anti-war’ groups supporters of terrorism?” as “a great piece of journalism,” and denouncing the mainstream media’s coverage as “disgraceful,”’s Justin Raimondo was feverishly pumping out a raggedy screed casting yours truly in a conspiratorial pinko-brown alliance.

Warmongers, Left And Right” is all heat and no light, with a servile Raimondo toeing the current anti-war leadership strategy: Label any and all criticisms of any aspect of the anti-war movement as conspiracies meant to derail it. Tools of the trade: insults and stereotypes to discredit. Well-reasoned arguments? Who needs them when you have loaded words and misinformation? Anything that could weaken the anti-war effort at all must be hushed up – they don’t want the desired results interfered with. Results trump truth and freedom of speech.

Isn’t that what they accused Ashcroft of doing? Putting a tight restriction on rights so that results could be achieved? Didn’t they argue that we don’t need tighter restrictions because, even with the looming threat of more terror, we have to have unlimited freedom above all?

For those engaging in this hypocrisy, there remains no ground of moral superiority.

Because of our “heresy” of speaking truth to the anti-war movement (you’re only allowed to do that to the Bush administration, apparently), Raimondo lumps us all in the same grab bag, attacking not only myself and WorldNetDaily, but also writers I referred to in my piece: Michelle Goldberg of, and David Horowitz of

That’s right. It’s the Goldberg-Horowitz-Gossett axis of ideological evil. (I’m not worthy!) We all are committing the one unforgivable sin in the protest community: daring to shine an unwavering beam of light on the dirty, ugly underbelly of this movement.

After tossing out some weird stereotype labels, Raimondo casts the three of us as having the goal of stopping something. Unlike Raimondo, we seek to expose truth, not obfuscate and attack, or push an agenda through at all costs. Why? Because “the people” deserve to know the truth.

He claims sadly, that we are in a “panic” over the “resounding success” of the recent rallies and marches. Are we to assume from this rickety argument that, because 100,000 people showed up, no criticism can be viable or allowed? Are numbers the new metric of infallibility? If so, then Nazi Germany was the perfect society.

Ironic, that he casts us as being the knee-jerk reactionaries. Raimondo’s dismal complaints and failure to address any of the real controversies in this posting, suggests he is, in fact, the one in a panic.

  • What about those pesky details like the Revolutionary Communist Party’s published plans to take up arms against the U.S. government, in a violent uprising designed to overthrow the American republic and replace it with a “Communist proletarian dictatorship”?

  • What about their support of the brutally violent “Shining Path” terrorist organization, which kills civilians who disagree with them?

  • What about IAC buddy Lynne Stewart’s arrest on charges of aiding a terrorist agency? And of helping the “blind Sheik” send a message to Egypt: “Fight the Jews and kill them wherever they are”?

  • What about the IAC’s Ramsey Clark defending a Nazi war criminal, but calling Bush a Nazi?

  • What about Clark Kissinger of Refuse & Resist, Not In Our Name, and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA telling the public that Homeland Security head Tom Ridge is “really scary” because he supports the death penalty for murders. Oh! The RCP’s newspaper, “Revolutionary Worker” just happens to support terrorist killing worldwide.

    Maybe that’s why Kissinger’s in a panic too. Simple self-preservation. A death penalty would deter Monsieur Kissinger et al. from engaging in murder and mayhem with impunity. Public execution would certainly appear to be dreadfully inconvenient for Kissinger and the RCP. Places to go, people to terrorize. No time for the law!

  • What about the IAC portraying itself as a big supporter of women’s and minorities’ rights while its founder Ramsey Clark defended a convicted war criminal against charges brought in a suit filed by the National Organization of Women on behalf of Bosnian rape victims? He was charged with ordering mass rapes and war crimes. But according to Clark, it’s dictator Bush that we really have to fear, and he, Clark Kissinger, Lynne Stewart et al. are going to defend us. Now that’s really scary rhetoric.

But equally scary is the fact that almost no one is talking about it. Not the major media. Not the protest leader bigwigs. Not the whining sycophants trapped in a delayed adolescence, that has them craving peer approval above doing and saying the right things.

And when someone does speak the truth, they are publicly taken to task by the likes of Raimondo, while the big fish go unfried.

Maybe that’s why Justin is in a panic. Maybe he’d rather just sweep these dirty little details under the rug of public discourse and journalism, and hope that they just go away. After all, if the RCP has its way, and we’re all saluting the new communist dictator of the USA, or eatin’ cabbage soup down in the Memphis gulag, someone might come back to him and ask why he was an anti-war leader, but wasn’t doing something about this really, really nasty business. Forget that, what if someone just reads our articles – they may wind up asking the same questions.

In which case, Mr. Raimondo’s public image and cocky persona will appear to be more important to him than the principles he claims to be fighting for.

Mr. Raimondo, you can ignore the real issues, but the problems are not just going to go away. Your studied evasion of all of these things in your column is truly telling.

“Psycho-tran” alert!

“What she does is throw all critics of the anti-war movement’s current leadership in the same bowl,” he says. And this from the creator of the one-size-fits-all “warmongers on the right and left” conspiracy theory? Isn’t this the proverbial pot calling the kettle black? Or, the “psycho-tran” (psychological transference as a non-viable form of discourse, masquerading as skilled apologetics – the favored speech of the anti-war leadership) approach?

Also, in an unintentionally comic passage, Raimondo alleges that I quoted him as saying that the anti-war movement is supporting terrorism. “I have never made any such statement,” he says in a huff. Well, guess what. He’s right. He never made the statement. And neither did I! Nowhere in the story does it say that Raimondo said that.

In a quasi-delusional paranoia, Raimondo seems to read himself into all sorts of pronouns where he doesn’t belong. He sees himself in every “they,” “some say” etc. He apparently thinks that he’s being talked about when he isn’t. Could it be that Justin is the one that needs the “meds” – not David Horowitz, as he contends? He assumes that when I mentioned that discussion of controversy was reaching the pages of Mother Jones, that I was again, talking about him. Sorry, Justin. But you’re not in that mention either.

Following that phrase, comes the key word: “and.” “And” the article goes on to say, [not “that”] it has Justin Raimondo of crying foul over San Francisco’s “Baghdad-by-the-Bay” protest experience. This is a reference to his op-ed, where he says that the protest leadership discredits the anti-war movement because of its radical political stance.

Nowhere does the article say that every activist is complaining about all of the same things, but instead that they have differing complaints, the worst of which is that key leaders and groups are supporting terrorism in their words and actions.

Now enough with the small potatoes. Back to the real issues.

Oh – that’s right – Raimondo never raised them.

Now, isn’t it time for the anti-war leadership to stop using words as weapons of mass deflection?