Fitting rebuttal. Why debate the merits of an overflowing toilet? Clear it with a plunger, flush it, and move on.
Look at your previous post. In one breath you praise and fawn over Raimondo for his supposedly coherent and well-supported positions. In the next breath you repudiate his conclusions as being wholly wrong. There is a disconnect here, unless you are praising him for his entertainment value only.
Every successful lounge magician in Vegas uses great technique to produce the illusion of substance. Raimondo is an Internet Vegas lounge magician in the world of political commentary. He is not the most famous or accomplished lounge magician in Internet Vegas, but he is hard-working and talented enough to win the applause and tips of the mostly blue and lower-white collar types who attend his show.
On this particular issue and at this particular time (as we prepare to disarm Saddam if he will not disarm himself) Raimondo is more dangerous than a Vegas lounge magician. He is aggressively using his lounge magician's technique to undermine those who must carry out the task. That's his first amendment right. But it will earn nothing from me but contempt and scorn.
My goal here, as I stressed (apparently without your notice), was simply to provoke discussion of whether or not a person could oppose the war on Iraq in good conscience, or if all its opponents were simply America-haters who would never accept a war as justifiable. I felt -- and feel -- that Justin Raimondo's musings reflect the misgivings many Americans, including some highly notable conservatives, have about this action. I specifically stated my personal opinion, but felt that Mr. Raimondo's objections deserved better than ad hominem disregard. If that constitutes "fawning," then so be it.