SUBSCRIBE:
David Horowitz

David Horowitz’s Archives: The Party of Defeat, and Self-Defeat

by
Posted on December 6 2010 6:45 am
David Horowitz is the editor-in-chief of NewsReal Blog and FrontPage Magazine. He is the President and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His most recent book is Reforming Our Universities

What Bush said was there’s an axis of evil in the world, and America is not going to allow itself to be attacked again as it was on 9/11, and he puts Saddam Hussein on note that he’d better comply with the arms control agreements from the Gulf War or else.

Al Gore — the Democrats, of course, a lot of them got all hot and bothered over that the same way they got hot and bothered when Ronald Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire because, of course, we’re the evil empire.  That’s what they think.

But Al Gore gave his first foreign policy speech after the 2000 election.  By the way, has anybody noticed that the Democrats — remember they were all for the popular vote in 2000 as against the electoral vote, and now Barack Obama is going to be nominated by what essentially is an electoral vote? Enter the delusion that Democrats have any principles whatsoever except power.

Al Gore gave a speech in which he supported the notion that Saddam was evil, and he specifically made reference to the “axis of evil” and said that was a good way to describe these countries.  But he also said in that speech, and I quote, “Iraq was a virulent threat — or is a virulent threat in a class by itself, and theUnited States is justified in pushing the limits in taking down or reining in Saddam Hussein.”

The third lie of this war is that you can support the troops but not the war.  No, you can’t.  You cannot support the troops if you don’t support their mission.  You cannot tell a 19-year-old who’s risking his life in Iraq, surrounded by terrorists, that he’s with the bad guys, that he’s the aggressor, that he’s the occupier, that it’s the wrong war in the wrong place, he shouldn’t be there, and not sap his fighting morale, which means getting him killed.  If you think that your cause isn’t just and you’re out there, you take away from a soldier his main strength.  You also deprive him of allies, and you also encourage his enemies, and that’s what the Democrats have done for the last five years.

What changed their attitude on Iraq?  In 2003, March, they supported the war.  In July, they were against the war and saying that it was basically a rape of Iraq.  That’s basically what their line was.  What changed?  Well, nothing in Iraq and nothing in those three months.  We had a lightning war, we took down Saddam Hussein, and we were just beginning to face the resistance after the war was over.  It was a time to rally around the president and call for more troops if that was what was necessary or whatever other constructive criticism you could offer.

What changed for the Democrats was that a left-wing extremist named Howard Dean was about to win the Democratic Party nomination.  He got 45% in the MoveOn.org poll.  That’s what changed the Democratic Party.  The anti-Vietnam left had powered the Howard Dean campaign to a front-runner position, and that’s when Kerry and Edwards flipped.

And if things in the world were right and we had a well-ordered society, John Kerry and John Edwards, for flipping 180 degrees on a war vote, would have been drummed out of public life forever.  Instead, this is the — theirs is the theme now of the Democratic Party, including Hillary, who voted for the war but now says it was George Bush’s war.

What the Democratic Party has done for five years is conducted a psychological warfare campaign against this country.  If you read the psychological warfare textbooks, the first task of a psychological warfare team is to destroy the credibility and moral character of the opposing commander in chief, to destroy the rationale, the justice of the opposing side’s war, and that’s all the Democratic Party has done for the last five years.

And, of course, they’ve been aided and abetted in this by the nation’s press.  The New York Times, theWashington Post, and the L.A. Times have destroyed at least three major national security programs by leaking classified information to the enemy.  You’re all familiar with these.  One was the NSA program — the NSA program for monitoring the calls.  When they captured Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, for example, the mastermind of 9/11, they got his computer.  They got Ramsey Youssef’s computer, and on the computer is a little phone book.  So the — our intelligence agencies were putting the names of the contacts of Sheikh Khalid Muhammad and these other Al Qaeda terrorists, just put it into a computer and you monitor all international phone calls to see who they’re contacting.  That’s what the program was.

The only way the program could work is if it were secret because once you tell them, they take measures to avoid it, which is the same thing that happened with the program to monitor the flow of terrorist money with the cooperation of international financial institutions.

The Bush administration, when they were told by The Times‘ editors that they were going to print these stories, begged them not to do it because it would jeopardize the lives of 300 million Americans, and of course, our forces overseas.  The New York Times went ahead and printed this classified information.

The government officials — and we have a huge problem in our government in the State department in the CIA of people like Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, who are lifelong members of the Left, who want this country to lose — certainly, they want the Bush administration to lose the War on Terror and are prepared to break this country’s laws and commit acts of treason in order to sabotage our programs.  The CIA people or whoever it was who leaked this information about these programs committed treason.  The New York Times aided and abetted that treason by publishing it.  The Bush administration was so spineless in fighting this domestic sabotage movement that it didn’t subpoena the editors of the New York Times.  Why wasn’t there a Justice Department subpoena for the editors of The Times and the Post that say give up the names of these people who have violated our national security and committed treason.

They did that with — to protect Valerie Plame.  They put Judith Miller in jail, the Times reporter, to get her to divulge who leaked the name of Valerie Plame.  Of course, we now know that the leakage came from a saboteur of the President’s policy in the State Department, Richard Armitage. And who did he leak it to? He leaked it to a conservative journalist who happens to be an opponent of the war in Iraq.

Now, again, we live in a democracy, and that means we have a procedure for changing policy.  If you don’t like a policy, you argue, you persuade the American people, you elect a different government, different representatives, and they change the policy.  That’s the way it’s done.  You don’t publish national security secrets on the front pages of your newspaper so that the terrorists can read it and change their method of operation and go on with their bloody business, but that’s exactly what’s happened.

Be Sociable, Share!

Continue reading page: 1 2 3 4

One Response leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2018 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry