Maggie's Farm

Bateman is as about as disingenuous as he claims others to be. This is typical pouting from academics that we see all of the time. "Polemicist", "fabulist" etc are just a couple of examples of the type of derision and name calling that exemplifies the typical academic historians disdain for those historians who actually write good history that actually sells. Rather than say, self-preening articles that only other academics or students (usually coerced) will ever read.
Case in point:
"Those who know better (academic historians in this case) often cannot match the volume of the polemicist who cloaks himself in the garb of legitimate-seeming history. It is a sad fact that "popular" usually trumps "academic" in the bookstore, so the falsehoods put together by the fabulist often drown out his academic critics. The general public, for its part, is often taken in by the fact that the fabulist appears learned and, therefore, should be trusted."
You see, to academics like Bateman and Alterman (whose main works lately are mostly political diatribes) if the public actually buys your book in a bookstore- you are not to be trusted. There is most definitely a political ax to grind, and often, the way that the subject of history has been hijacked in the last 40 years - the general public are the ones who will suffer.
Since leftists have moved history into the "Social Sciences" arena, away from Humanities, it has suffered more in the public arena. The emphasis has been to demonstrate that America is not unique, nor our system of government an example to the world. Capitalism is the enemy and the ultimate bias (Mr. Bateman notwithstanding) is the Marxists interpretation that has permeated throughout academia. It is through this filter that many academic historians are judged, vetted, hired and fired. In other words, in academia, History is not about history. It's about a template- a theme- a meme- a ideologically viewpoint to which you cram whatever "facts" you can use to prove your point. The story, the people and the time doesn't matter, as long as you can find something to fit your preconceived narrative.
Mr. Bateman for his part, called VDH and other "populist" historians (IE, Historians who actually write good books that people will read, backed up by facts and figures) on the carpet for being biased, yet hid his own biases beneath a veneer of "academia". He stated that only "academic" historians are to be trusted. Ranted against VDH's thesis in Carnage and Culture (which is also revisited in other VDH's books, and is well researched and backed up), yet offered no alternative argument- nor demonstrated where the thesis was wrong- and did not back his own argument up. The worse offense, in some ways, was to tout his military credentials in the midst of all of this. It offends me as a historian and as a military brat. In other words, Bateman spends most of his time huffing and puffing, and not much time blowing any houses down.
You'll have to forgive my long comment. In my offline line life (and my non-penname life), I teach History (and Humanities) at a local University, and this hits a nerve.

Bird Dog, News Junkie et al-
As Buddy Larsen indicated above, Victor Davis Hanson has replied to Bateman's hit piece at his site:
http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/25/some_more_replies.php#more

It would be worth linking to his response. He pretty much shows how Bateman completely embarasses himself. I would think Mr. Bateman would withdraw from the field after this, to reserve some measure of dignity. I doubt it.