File this one in the “here’s why we don’t argue on the grounds of inconsistency when we criticize humanitarian intervention” file. Has Mr. Abrams not seen what is coming of our Lybian excursion?

Glenn Greenwald excerpts some noxious drivel from The Corner and goes on to complain:

And these are the high-minded, deeply Serious observations one finds in just one 24 hour period in the most respectable right-wing outlet in America. This is to say nothing of what one finds peddled by the lower levels of the right-wing noise machine: Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit, Bill O’Reilly, Drudge, right-wing blogs and the like. But this really is exactly the political faction that has exerted dominant political power in this country for the last 15 years, and has exclusively shaped America’s behavior for the last eight years. And, as a result, we have exactly the country one would expect would be produced when people who have these beliefs are empowered.

I’d like to extend the thesis to Mr. Greenwald that it’s not that we have the country we do today because of the fulminations of certain right-wing publications, but rather that these fulminations are an expression of the true beliefs and dark paranoias which haunt America’s psyche. Fighting the symptoms is no cure.

Andrew links to an article tracking National Review’s longstanding sympathy for fascism. It’s a lively and eye-opening read, made all the funnier given that one of NR’s current editors has just published a book titled Liberal Fascism.

It reminds me of a clip of Gore Vidal debating William F. Buckley Jr. in 1968.

Vidal calls Buckley a crypto-Nazi, and Buckley in return threatens to punch Vidal’s lights out. When I saw this clip a year or so ago, I thought Vidal was just being nasty. Given the above-linked article, perhaps his gybe wasn’t completely unfounded.

Towards the end, the article excerpts a section out of NR editor Jeffrey Hart’s 1987 book, From This Moment On, which includes the following fascinating snippet:

Mussolini liked to interrupt his working day several times with sexual intercourse, often standing up and in his uniform, a very rapid performance.

I’d need to see it in context in the book to make out if Mr. Hart really is lionizing Mussolini here. But if he is, I’m puzzled. Fine, the man was horny, had to have it several times a day, so busy he did it standing up and clothed. Got it. But is quick ejaculation a sign of virility? I suppose one could say that it signals utmost disdain for those on the receiving end of his effluence, which could be an admirable trait for thug-worshippers. But apart from that, I’m at a loss.