← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 13593 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2004-05-07
2004-05-07 10:26 | User Profile
[COLOR=Navy]This is up at the FPM website in the Authors' Archive though for some reason the byline is postdated for May 30th. I will save my commentary for a later time except to point out that - whether you have only begun to grasp the Jewish nature of neoconservatism, or you've been hip to it for years, [I]this is an essential document [/I] - worth a dozen Suleyman Ahmad or Jamie Glazov screeds. This may well be the Neo MEIN KAMPF. It's all here: the agenda, the arrogance, the image of America as envisioned by the Rootless Cosmopolitan, and above all - shamelessness. One's jaw hangs open in near-disbelief at the shamelessness which fuels the engine of neoconservatism. One to clip and save for [I]dang [/I] sure.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11986[/url]
[B]David's Speech[/B]
By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | May 30, 2004 (?)
[SIZE=2][FONT=Book Antiqua]I once had a political mentor who, every time I would get frustrated with the political situation, and people’s willful ignorance, he would say to me, "David, you have to understand that people have a hard time adding two and two and getting four." I was reminded of this just last week. I spoke at the University of Montana, and something calling itself the Committee on Academic Standards and Curriculum had just rejected for the second year in a row the request of the campus ROTC, the Officer Training Corp for the Army, to include a course in military science in the curriculum.
I think we can all understand what’s going on here. We have been attacked. The military needs to recruit college educated people for the new Army and the new Air Force. They wanted to create a course that would attract students who might be willing to serve their country. And in this context, where we have been attacked by an enemy that has publicly condemned every American man, woman and child to death, that singled out an office building containing 50,000 innocent people for destruction, the University of Montana faculty does not want to help the military. And the reason that the course was rejected? The professor who was the spokesman said because the sponsors of this course are too close to the Department of Defense. Two plus two equals four.
People ask the question, are we safer now than we were two years ago. Well consider, before 9/11 we had a decade of being attacked by Islamic radicals, starting with a bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, where 1,000 people were injured. The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, did not even visit the site. And then a series of other attacks where we did nothing. And we’ve had a presidential task force recommend that we beef up our airport security in a way that would have prevented 9/11, but the White House vetoed this, because it might be considered racial profiling of Muslims. (That task force was headed by Al Gore, by the way, who now reveals that he’s been a closet leftist all his life. Maybe this is a second childhood of one that he didn’t actually have.)
But here is an easy way to figure this out. How many people would have bet on 9/12, 2001, that there would not be another terrorist attack in the United States for more than two years? There is not one. Nobody would have bet on 9/12/2001 that we would not have another terrorist attack inside the United States. By the way, since the first one took $600 billion out of the economy, a second one might have taken the whole world economy down, with unforetold political consequences.
The reason nobody would bet against terrorist attacks is because we all understand that we have no borders in this country, and that we are a relatively open society, so that we really cannot defend ourselves if people get in here with weapons. There is only one reason we haven’t been attacked in the United States in more than two years: that is because the President of the United States has taken the war to the enemy camp, to Kabul, to Basra, and Tikrit. We’ve taken out two-thirds of the al-Qaeda leadership.
Osama bin Laden, as I’ve been saying for several years now, is dead. The reason I know is he hasn’t appeared on Larry King lately. Of course, I don’t know if he is physically dead, but he is effectively dead. In the last video I saw, he is an old man, walking in the mountains with a stick. And he doesn’t have his cell phone. So he can’t have access to his bank accounts. The reality is that we have so put them off balance – as everybody knows we must do in a fight – so disoriented them, so taken out the key operatives, that they can only have access to soft targets in places like Turkey. That can change, but that’s the reality right now, and it is due to the war we have fought.
By the way, people who say there is no relation between al-Qaeda and Iraq have to explain why all those al-Qaeda fighters are in Iraq right now fighting us. Or maybe they should read the defense intelligence report that was just released, which shows that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have been in negotiations and contracts for over a decade. We also have had revealed that Saddam Hussein was in negotiations with the North Koreans to acquire really long range missiles. We know he had the chemical weapons laboratory. Tipping a long range missile with chemical weapons is not that hard. And we know that the North Koreans drew back partly because we intercepted the arms shipment in Yemen, and also because we had 200,000 troops surrounding Iraq at the time.
You do have to ask yourself why are all these Islamic radicals pouring into Iraq to take on the U.S. military. You would think that this is not a good strategy. Why would they take on the American military in Iraq? Why has Iraq become the central battleground of the War on Terror? I hope some Democrats are listening. Well, I have the answer right here. In an interview that ABC News reporter John Miller did with Osama bin Laden in 1998, Osama said we have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government, and the weakness of the American soldier, who is unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut, when the Marines fled after two explosions, when the Hezbollah blew up our barracks in Lebanon. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours. And this was also repeated in Somalia. As those of you who have seen "Black Hawn Down," know the U.S. troops were attacked and massacred by an al-Qaeda warlord.
We are prepared to fight cold wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. War is, in its heart, a battle of wills. We have not been able to put an army in the field for more than four days since 1973. Until the beginning of the Iraq War, we had not been able to keep and put an army in the field anywhere for more than four days. This is the amount of time that they were in the first Gulf War. We could not send an army to Afghanistan, when the Soviets invaded. It was the first time the Red Army had crossed an international frontier since the Second World War. They conducted a scorched earth policy and killed one million Afghan citizens. The United States could not put an army in there, which is why we had to arm the Mujahiden, among whom of course were Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Why couldn’t we do it? We couldn’t do it because of what happened during the Vietnam War, when our country was divided, when our world was divided, and when we were forced to leave the field of battle and let the enemy win.
Ever since then, there has been such a strong so-called anti-war movement, whose political locus has been the Democratic Party. This is a test of will. You attack the American military, because you believe that if you can kill enough of them, you don’t have to defeat them. They will be defeated in Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s what is going on in this war.
Coming over here, I saw this sign on a car, which we’ve all seen many times: "War is Not the Answer." Well what’s the question? If the question is how do you respond to an enemy twho will take hundreds of people hostage in commercial airliners and fly them into buildings with 50,000 people in them without warning, and who are given a base by a government, and supplied with weapons and communications by a government which also seeks the destruction of Americans, then the answer is war. And that’s the answer the President gave. That’s why we haven’t been attacked in this country since 9/11. The answer is to fight them on the streets of Tikrit and Basra, and not Washington and New York. Two plus two equals four.
And that brings me to a really troubling moment here, because we have to look at the way the Democratic Party and its leaders -- with one or two honorable exceptions like Senator Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, sort of -- have behaved since the liberation of Baghdad. From the day Baghdad was liberated, from the day the prisons for twelve year-olds that Saddam Hussein had were opened and the kids were let out, and the day they stopped the plastic shredders from killing people that Saddam didn’t like, from the day they uncovered the mass graves with 300,000 people slaughtered by Saddam, the Democratic Party has declared war on the Commander-in-Chief.
Now I want to be really clear here. I believe that there is a legitimate position of criticism of foreign policy, and even of war policy. However, here the context and the framework is everything. You do not, on the day Baghdad is liberated, start a campaign to undermine the credibility of the Commander-in-Chief to say, "This was the wrong war at the wrong time; we should have gone to the UN."
Or, for an entire month, fixate the world on 16 words in a State of the Union Address, which are absolutely true. All the President said was that British intelligence reports that Iraq was negotiating with Niger to obtain uranium. That is as true today as it was then. Not only that, the British still maintain that these negotiations were taking place. And since the Iraqi Ambassador or Emissary was in Niger, and Niger has two main exports – chickpeas and uranium – he might not have been there for chickpeas.
But the point is that this is obviously not a huge smoking gun. We now have five or six books by big fat liars like Michael Moore about Bush’s lying. We can expect Michael Moore’s next film to be out soon, which will show that George Bush and Osama bin Laden were partners in 9/11. This is sabotage of the nation’s will to defend itself.
When Dick Gephardt calls the President a miserable failure, that is sabotage of the Commander-in-Chief. When Ted Kennedy says that the war is a fraud, concocted in Texas by oil companies, that’s a soundbite for al-Jazeera TV.
When it was revealed that Clinton had concocted all of these lies to get out of the draft, that struck a chord in me, because I am of that generation of the Left that opposed the war. The same goes for Howard Dean, who used a medical deferment for a bad back to get out of the draft, and then moved to Aspen, Colorado, to ski while other young men were dying in his place. This is a character issue. This is a political issue only insofar as I certainly believe that character is about as important in determining a president as anything else.
I didn’t happen to be drafted at the time. But I didn’t conceal. I didn’t think, as Bill Clinton did, "What is this going to do to my career, to stand up and oppose the war?" One of my dearest friends was a helicopter gunner in Vietnam. And we became friends when I had been speaking somewhere, and he came up to me afterwards. When I learned what he had done, I apologized for stabbing him in the back while he was on the front lines. And he said you don’t have to apologize, because I was fighting for your right to dissent. You stood up for your principals. You took the consequences. Howard Dean did not.
I have a relative who also has a bad back, and who came from a conservative family. He refused to go to Vietnam and went to Canada instead. His mother said to him, "I wish you had gone to Vietnam and been killed rather than do this." This young man’s entire life was affected by his willingness to stand up for his principles at the time. Howard Dean can make no such claim.
And I would almost be inclined to forgive Howard Dean, except for what he has just done for his brother. His brother was not in the military. His brother has just been given a military funeral with honors. And we know what this is about. This is about sucking up to somebody who might be president one day. Howard Dean’s brother did not go to Vietnam to fight. To debase the ceremony by which we honor young people who give their lives to defend all of us is inexcusable. Howard Dean needed to make one phone call to prevent this travesty from happening. There is a waiting line for the honors that were misbestowed on Howard Dean’s brother. And this tells me a lot about Howard Dean. I don’t need to know his economic policies, that he stood up to leftists. I don’t need to know anything else about this man to know that I do not want him to be President of the United States.
Let me say something, since I have been on Vietnam, about the abuse of the Vietnam analogy in fighting the President’s policies in Iraq. People may not remember this. But in 1973, American troops were withdrawn from Vietnam. And this in itself was an invitation to the North Vietnamese Communists to overrun the south, and set up a Communist gulag, which they eventually did. Nixon tried very hard to have what he called a peace with honor, which would be to prevent the North Vietnamese army from invading the south.
Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean were part of the movement, which I also was regrettably part of, that led the effort to pull remaining American support from the governments of Cambodia and South Vietnam who were resisting the Communists. Richard Nixon went down in Watergate, which was a political coup, organized mainly by Teddy Kennedy. Eight of the eleven special prosecutors were from various Kennedy campaigns. That was a true attempt at impeachment to reverse an election. And then everybody sees the missed and the last impeachment battle, where, of course, if Bill Clinton had been impeached, Al Gore would be president. It was not such a campaign.
When Nixon stepped down, there was an election. The "Watergate generation" came into Congress, led by quite a few pretty radical people. The first act of this Democratic Congress was to cut off aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia in January, 1975. In April, the regimes fell. In the next three years, 2.5 million peasants in Indochina were slaughtered by the Communists, because, of course, the Russians and the Chinese continued to pour weapons and material and aid into the Communist hands. The blood of the Cambodians and the Vietnamese is on the heads of people like John Kerry, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy and myself. And I seem to be one of the only people to stand up and say so.
I should probably mention that there are Democrats who understand this. Oddly enough, Hilary Clinton is one of them. Both Hilary and Joe Lieberman understand this. If we are divided, if this Democratic sniping continues, and grows and gets such a popular support that we fall from Iraq without establishing a stable regime, which will be hostile to terror, which will prevent Saddam’s followers in al-Qaeda, and the Iranians for that matter, from helping them in establishing a regime friendly to them, there will be a bloodbath, just as there was in Vietnam. But it will not only be a bloodbath in the streets of Basra and Tikrit, but of Washington and New York as well. Two plus two equals four.
We are here today so I can talk about my new book, Left Illusions, which is a book about an intellectual journey, because it has articles I actually wrote when I was still a leftist, and takes you right up to the present war on terror. It describes my intellectual journey from left to conservative. Conservatives are people who wake up in the morning and are happy that things aren’t worse than they are. They are impressed by the weight of the past and the present. And they understand something very, very basic: that is that the root cause of social problems is us. Human beings are the problem. That’s why it’s dangerous to put your faith in government as the answer to all our problems. Government will transform us. Leftists are the opposite. They are what you call utopians.
Even a mild utopian like Hilary Clinton believes we can redefine what it means to be human in the 21st century. No we can’t. They believe that if you just get rid of private property, you can transform the world. This is the most tolerant, freest place on earth. All you have to do is look at the immigration statistics and the lines. This is a country that poor people, brown people, black people, yellow people want to come to, because it’s so good for them here compared to where they are. Two plus two equals four.
Probably the wisest little two pages of insight into our predicament are the first pages of the Old Testament, Genesis, because what that little book tells you is that well, we were living in paradise. But we didn’t like it. It wasn’t enough. What the serpent said to Adam and Eve is eat of this tree, and you shall be a god. Human beings, in addition to being ornery, if there is one thing we can’t have, that’s what we want, are also puffed up with self-righteousness and pride. And it causes them tremendous woe. In fact, it’s pretty easy to see and to say that the atrocities of the Twentieth Century – whatever you’re talking about, narcissism, communism, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, are caused by this idea that we can be a god, that you make the rules. And we don’t have to. You look at human beings.
You have this whole little culture in the West Bank in the Middle East which murders its own children. It believes if they trap on these bombs, go into Israel and blow up some children they will go to heaven and have 72 virgins. This is a sick culture. Of course 60% or 70% of the Palestinians support suicide bombing.
You know, it’s amazing to me: Liberals foam at the mouth when you mention religion. Of course every group has a fringe that might be frightening, but the bulk of conservative Christians in America are entirely decent people. Yet the Left can embrace Islamo-facists.
Sami Al-Arian, until very recently a professor at the University of South Florida, one of the three founding members of the Palestine Islamic Jihad, responsible for the suicide bombing deaths of 99 people, was a good cause of the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors, who wants to censure his university for getting rid of him. Imagine that?
The belief in this utopia leads nowhere. Muhammad Attah was a utopian. He believed that if he flew these planes into this building and killed all these innocent people it would lead, eventually, to the establishment of Islamic law throughout the world, and the world would become a holy place. The world will never, ever be a holy place. Two plus two equals four. That’s why you need a Divine redeemer, not Michael Moore or Dennis Kucinich.
I am very sensitive to that, because my own father was a communist in the thirties. He traveled around the country in the thirties doing the Communist Party’s bidding, which was to attack American armament against Germany and Japan. And he was a Jew. When you see these Jews who support terrorist organizations, like the International Solidarity Movement, and go and have breakfast with Arafat, they have the same mentality as my own father. And he was a very decent man in his life. He just was infected with this virus of utopian ideas, that you can change the world.
My own path out of this delusion – illusion, Left Illusion, was a tragic one. I got involved with the Black Panther Party in Oakland, through a Hollywood producer. (What else?) And I have to ask – you know, I ask myself now, where are these guys going around in leather jackets, carrying guns, saying things like “Free Huey” or “The Sky’s the Limit,” making trips to China to meet with the Communists. These are gangsters, dangerous people. Why didn’t I see that? Because I couldn’t see that two plus two equals four. And let me tell you, I was pretty good at it as far as leftists go, because I didn’t like the leather jackets or the guns or the trip to China, and said so.
But I still believed in this leftist mythology. This is the other aspect of believing that the world is going to change, and that therefore, by kind of one lever. Archimedes said give me a lever and a place to stand on, and I will move the world. That is the fundamental thinking of the Left. You will not move the world. But I believed the Black Panther Party was part of this apparatus that could move the world. After all, Tom Hayden told me that they were the vanguard of a revolution.
I raised quite a bit of money, and I built a school. My intention in doing this was really a community program. I was a great skeptic of revolution then. Tom Hayden and others were running around with guns and were training. And Bob Scheer of the L.A. Times was another one. I actually – I was not part of that. I think that was the difference.
But I did raise this money for the Panthers. And I bought a church. And we had 150 Panther children in the church, because it was a tax exempt foundation, and because I had been snookered into believing that the IRS would investigate a black radical organization. Please.
I recruited my book people, who were working for me at Ramparts, the largest magazine of the New Left. I asked her to keep the books for the school. In December, 1974, Betty Van Patter disappeared. Five weeks later the police fished her body out of San Francisco Bay. I knew in that moment that the Panthers had killed her. That was the end of my career in the Left. Looking back, and it also altered my own life.
I was devastated by it. And I was clinically, in my view, depressed for the next seven years. did no politics. I didn’t really do any politics for ten years after that, because I had to extricate myself from these people that I knew, who were supporting these murderers. And this is a microcosm for me of what the Left is. There are a lot of people of good will on the lLft. But what they wind up doing is defending murderers.
I had to ask myself, if what I wanted to do was help a community, why didn’t I go to a black church and help it, and raise money for them? Well, one answer is I probably couldn’t have raised much money with a black church, because there’s no glamour in it for the leftists. The leftists would not have raised the money for it.
But the real reason that I didn’t is that I thought if I do this with the panthers, it will become a model for the whole country. The panthers had media presence. But they also have this vision of a utopian world. And so I was hooked into being involved with the Panthers, and hence, helped them to recruit a woman to her death. And of course, she had the same allegiance that I had, which is how she got herself in the situation as well, by this vision of a utopia, a nowhere, a changed world. Two plus two does equal four.
When I look at the attacks on this country, when I travel to campuses – I’ve spoken on 30, 40, 50 campuses in the last year – it really bothers me to learn what the students are learning, to read the texts that they’re reading, because they are utopian texts. The Left is completely entrenched in our faculties. Ninety-nine percent of all professors who deal in history, sociology, these issues, are leftists. Some of them are really extreme leftists with full professorships, teaching.
And what I try to tell the students is this: if you’re looking at the world, the glass is always going to be half empty and half full. There is never going to be a full glass in this world, in this life. So, the Left ye shall have with ye always. It’s like Adam and Eve, the story of Babel, people building a tower to heaven. It could just go on and on.
Lenin came with the power to say, "We’re just going to share the wealth." Lenin and his friends made Russia poor beyond human beings’ dreams.
In 1989 in Russia people were able to get less meat than they did in 1913 under the Czar, the average Russian. A hundred million people slaughtered by progressives in pursuit of their impossible dreams.
Well, if you look at the United States you can see yes, we did inherit a slave system. But the slaves were enslaved in Africa by Arabs and Africans, black Africans. We inherited this system from the British Empire. From 1776 until 1865, which I believe is 89 years, the United States eliminated slavery at the cost of 350,000 American lives. Because our founders, who were in part slave owners, had a vision that all people are children of God and therefore, created equal. That was a revolutionary idea. But it was different from the revolutionary ideas of the Left, because it didn’t really involve a change in human nature. All it involved was extending the rights of Englishmen to the rights of Americans to the rights of people who were black.
And we in this country have fought many battles and have so expanded the realm of freedom and equality. Michael Jackson is getting, if anything, too much latitude in the realm of justice. And I could stand up here and name one black figure after another of whom the same is true. We have racists in our society, but they are both black and they are white and they are all colors. And the genius of America is to treat them on an individual basis.
We are, as the President said after 9-11, the beacon of freedom to the world. When you look at who is leading our forces, you can see how pathetic the Left is in its attacks on America. Michael Moore said the reason we have attacked Iraq is because they don’t look like us. Of course they look like us. We are the only country that looks like the world.
The general in charge of our central command in Iraq is John Abizaid, an Arab-American. The general in charge of the troops inside Iraq is Charles Rodriquez, an Hispanic-American. The general in charge of our foreign policy is an African-American, Colin Powell, as is our National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. There has never been, in the history of the world, a country like this, a beacon of freedom to the world. It is a monstrous intellectual climb for college professors and arts and croissant liberals to make our young people embarrassed by their country. This is a nation to be proud of. And this is vital as al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein test our wills. Because if you are ashamed of your country you cannot defend yourself. Two plus two equals four. Thank you. [/FONT] [/SIZE]
[I]David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Horowitz’s latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring. [/I] [/QUOTE]
2004-05-07 21:03 | User Profile
Coming over here, I saw this sign on a car, which weââ¬â¢ve all seen many times: "War is Not the Answer." Well whatââ¬â¢s the question? If the question is how do you respond to an enemy who will take hundreds of people hostage in commercial airliners and fly them into buildings with 50,000 people in them without warning, and who are given a base by a government, and supplied with weapons and communications by a government which also seeks the destruction of Americans, then the answer is war. And thatââ¬â¢s the answer the President gave. Thatââ¬â¢s why we havenââ¬â¢t been attacked in this country since 9/11. The answer is to fight them on the streets of Tikrit and Basra, and not Washington and New York. Two plus two equals four. Oh, I see now! He makes it so clear. We have to fight the Afghanis who (we assume) had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, but we need to do so in the streets of Iraqi cities such as Tikrit and Basra! Just like two and two make four! Duhhrrr... :wacko:
And of course the current war in Iraq is the reason why we haven't been attacked within the US since 9/11. Those Iraqi terrorists must be really terrified for their lives if they're willing to fight a guerrilla war against the US military rather than simply sneak into the US and commit a suicide bombing. People who are willing to give their lives to harm the US will be really scared of losing their lives if they make us angry. What impeccable logic! :lol:
2004-05-07 22:26 | User Profile
What truly boggles the mind is the sheer numbers of people who swallow this rubbish whole as the gospel truth and the only perspective on this world.
The stupidity of the "Judeo-Christian" Gentiles is what apalls the most.
2004-05-08 16:34 | User Profile
[B]il ragno[/B] Yesterday I composed something, but had to stop as I was so angry at this lout. His concern is strictly limited to interests on how American actions affect Israel and American Jewry.
Yet I must begin.
[QUOTE]I think we can all understand whatââ¬â¢s going on here. We have been attacked. The military needs to recruit college educated people for the new Army and the new Air Force. They wanted to create a course that would attract students who might be willing to serve their country. And in this context, where we have been attacked by an enemy that has publicly condemned every American man, woman and child to death, that singled out an office building containing 50,000 innocent people for destruction, the University of Montana faculty does not want to help the military. And the reason that the course was rejected? The professor who was the spokesman said because the sponsors of this course are too close to the Department of Defense. Two plus two equals four.[/QUOTE]Perhaps they believe too many Montanans have died in American wars and want to see Horowitz and his kin do the dying.
[QUOTE]And this was also repeated in Somalia. As those of you who have seen "Black Hawn Down," know the U.S. troops were attacked and massacred by an al-Qaeda warlord.[/QUOTE] The American troops fought extremely bravely and well.
[QUOTE]We couldnââ¬â¢t do it because of what happened during the Vietnam War, when our country was divided, when our world was divided, and when we were forced to leave the field of battle and let the enemy win. [/QUOTE] Where was this gutless hebe?
[QUOTE]When Dick Gephardt calls the President a miserable failure, that is sabotage of the Commander-in-Chief. When Ted Kennedy says that the war is a fraud, concocted in Texas by oil companies, thatââ¬â¢s a soundbite for al-Jazeera TV.[/QUOTE] When I say the war pushed by Jews for the benefit of Israel, I am called a bigot. Yet my statement has more truth than Kennedyââ¬â¢s.
[QUOTE]When it was revealed that Clinton had concocted all of these lies to get out of the draft, that struck a chord in me, because I am of that generation of the Left that opposed the war. The same goes for Howard Dean, who used a medical deferment for a bad back to get out of the draft, and then moved to Aspen, Colorado, to ski while other young men were dying in his place. This is a character issue. This is a political issue only insofar as I certainly believe that character is about as important in determining a president as anything else.
[COLOR=Red]I didnââ¬â¢t happen to be drafted at the time.[/COLOR] But I didnââ¬â¢t conceal. I didnââ¬â¢t think, as Bill Clinton did, "What is this going to do to my career, to stand up and oppose the war?" One of my dearest friends was a helicopter gunner in Vietnam. And we became friends when I had been speaking somewhere, and he came up to me afterwards. When I learned what he had done, I apologized for stabbing him in the back while he was on the front lines. And he said you donââ¬â¢t have to apologize, because I was fighting for your right to dissent. You stood up for your principals. You took the consequences. Howard Dean did not.[/QUOTE]Horowitz really is a shameless liar. He did not happen to be drafted because he lied and cheated his way out.
[QUOTE][COLOR=Red]And I would almost be inclined to forgive Howard Dean, except for what he has just done for his brother. His brother was not in the military. His brother has just been given a military funeral with honors. And we know what this is about. This is about sucking up to somebody who might be president one day. Howard Deanââ¬â¢s brother did not go to Vietnam to fight.[/COLOR] To debase the ceremony by which we honor young people who give their lives to defend all of us is inexcusable. Howard Dean needed to make one phone call to prevent this travesty from happening. There is a waiting line for the honors that were misbestowed on Howard Deanââ¬â¢s brother. And this tells me a lot about Howard Dean. I donââ¬â¢t need to know his economic policies, that he stood up to leftists. I donââ¬â¢t need to know anything else about this man to know that I do not want him to be President of the United States.[/QUOTE]Another Larry Lawrence I suspect.
[QUOTE]This is the most tolerant, freest place on earth. All you have to do is look at the immigration statistics and the lines. This is a country that poor people, brown people, black people, yellow people want to come to, because itââ¬â¢s so good for them here compared to where they are. Two plus two equals four.[/QUOTE]Do I want them? No.
[QUOTE][COLOR=Red]I am very sensitive to that, because my own father was a communist in the thirties. He traveled around the country in the thirties doing the Communist Partyââ¬â¢s bidding, which was to attack American armament against Germany and Japan. And he was a Jew[/COLOR]. When you see these Jews who support terrorist organizations, like the International Solidarity Movement, and go and have breakfast with Arafat, they have the same mentality as my own father. [COLOR=Red]And he was a very decent man in his life[/COLOR]. He just was infected with this virus of utopian ideas, that you can change the world.[/QUOTE]A very decent man who defended a greater slaughter of Slavs than Hitler and friends did against Jews. John Demjanuk was a better man than his father.
[QUOTE]From 1776 until 1865, which I believe is 89 years, the United States eliminated slavery at the cost of 350,000 American lives. Because our founders, who were in part slave owners, had a vision that all people are children of God and therefore, created equal. That was a revolutionary idea. But it was different from the revolutionary ideas of the Left, because it didnââ¬â¢t really involve a change in human nature. All it involved was extending the rights of Englishmen to the rights of Americans to the rights of people who were black.[/QUOTE]More than 600,000 died.
There are other lies, but I must rest. Thanks to the illustrious [B]il ragno[/B] for publishing this swill.
2004-05-08 17:29 | User Profile
AY--
I admittedly characterized this as their MK because of its [I]lack [/I] of any sort of a scholarly sheen. Hitler's book, particularly the autobiographical first half, is a populist work - it's not poorly written or unintelligent by any means but very much designed to appeal to a wide man-in-the-street audience.
You're correct as regards the second half of the book, though.
EG--
I cannot tell a lie. When I scanned those parts of Horowitz's text regarding Vietnam, WW 2 and the military in general, I began an internal countdown to the appearance of your outraged response. Hope you didn't have to reach for the digitalis between drafts.
2004-05-08 20:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon] Horowitz really is a shameless liar. He did not happen to be drafted because he lied and cheated his way out. [/QUOTE] Edward,
Do you have any figures on what percentage of the Army's combat troops are Jews? I bet it isnt even 0.01 percent.
2004-05-10 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]Edward, Do you have any figures on what percentage of the Army's combat troops are Jews? I bet it isnt even 0.01 percent.[/QUOTE]Please see the following post - [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=2073[/url]
Jews are more than 0.01 percent of today's American army. They are somewhere around 0.3 percent when they are about 2.2 percent of American population. Please see the following site - [url]http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/standard/7_...ws/20210-1.html[/url]
Just ask Col. Michelle Ross, director of the Medical Chemical Defense Research Program for the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, chosen as one of Jewish Woman magazine's 10 Women to Watch for 2002.
"I had no idea they knew anything about me," she said. "It was a complete surprise because I'm way behind the scenes and not generally in the forefront."
Of the 100 women initially in the running, Ross made the final cut to the top 10 after several elimination rounds. Though some of the honorees were nominated, Ross was chosen because her name appeared in the magazine's files of newspaper and magazine clippings, said Jessica Buel, marketing associate for the magazine.
"Essentially, we nominated her," Buel said.
Other women to make the top 10 list include a breast cancer researcher, a rabbi, a vice president with Chanel, and a documentary filmmaker, to name a few. The women were selected "for their inspiring work in art, culture, community, business, politics, media, family, science and spirituality," according to the magazine's press release.
"When you get a medal, it's generally in recognition of something specific that you've done," Ross said. "This award is, in a sense, recognition of who I am. It's different, and it's very special."
Ross's sons, Jonathan, 12, and Thomas, 14, are thrilled with their mother's triumph.
"You know how little boys are with contests, they were really excited," she said. A single parent, Ross plans to take them to the luncheon in Washington when she and the other nine women to watch will be honored on Nov. 18, six days before her 16-year anniversary as an Army officer.
For Ross, one benefit in winning the award is the insight it gives the Jewish community into the Department of Defense--and vice versa.
"Historically, Jews make up a very small minority in the DoD, so the visibility works both ways," she said. In fact, according to the Army Chief of Chaplains Office, [B]0.3 percent or 1,488 soldiers [/B] self identify themselves as being Jewish on their dog tags.
2004-05-10 19:45 | User Profile
Thanks. Most useful.
Best regards,
Peter
2004-05-10 20:48 | User Profile
David Horowitz is an opportunistic sleazeball. He is certainly a man of principle, though. One principle, to be exact -- Shecky First. He loves to go on and on about how he was involved in the Black Panthers, and then he experience some grand conversion. The only conversion he experienced is that he realized that 60's style Leftism had ceased being useful to destroy Western Civilization, and that a new "NeoConservative" Leftism was now required. I once saw Sean "House Goy" Hannity interviewing Horowitz on one of the Fox propaganda shows. The effect of both of them together was so revolting that it literally turned my stomach.
2004-05-11 01:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=horowitz]if you look at the United States you can see yes, we did inherit a slave system. But the slaves were enslaved in Africa by Arabs and Africans, black Africans. We inherited this system from the British Empire. From 1776 until 1865, which I believe is 89 years, the United States eliminated slavery at the cost of 350,000 American lives.[/QUOTE]
There's plenty to object to here, as in any Horotowitz screed, but I particularly enjoyed the way he only counted Union deaths in the War Between the States....
2004-05-11 02:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]There's plenty to object to here, as in any Horotowitz screed, but I particularly enjoyed the way he only counted Union deaths in the War Between the States....[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding? I'm surprised he counted some of the Gentiles.
2004-05-11 08:52 | User Profile
I see that Horowitz has been listening to Rush lately with his "two plus two..." stuff. With Rush it is "a tiger is a tiger..."
You do have to ask yourself why are all these Islamic radicals pouring into Iraq to take on the U.S. military. You would think that this is not a good strategy.
It is a stupid strategy dreamed up by the likes of Wolfowitz and company to invade Iraq.
Why not instead have them pour into Afghanistan instead where you don't have large concentrations of urban populations? You can really bring firepower to bear there without having to level a city and creating more enemies. Urban fighting is bad enough without having the locals take part as well. I guess having Afghanistan wasn't good enough for them. Instead, these lunatics had to invade Iraq and create enemies that are willing to fight.
Why would they take on the American military in Iraq? Why has Iraq become the central battleground of the War on Terror?
Because we are there, you dimwit, and some folks would rather be ruled by their own despots than puppets placed over them by foreigners. See Napolean's invasion of Spain for an example. People of your mindset are responsible for this.