Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This is Not a Magazine about Republicans or Democrats But About a War We Have to Win ^ | November 1, 2004 | David Horowitz

Posted on 11/01/2004 1:10:12 PM PST by PJBlogger

This is Not a Magazine about Republicans or Democrats But About a War We Have to Win By David Horowitz | November 1, 2004

I have received emails from readers asking why I continue to post Andrew Sullivan’s blog on this website and others demanding that I remove it at once. I have not done that and have no intention of doing so. First, this website is not devoted to Republican politics. It is devoted to the war against terror and the war against the fifth column adversaries of this country and supporters of our enenmies abroad. This fifth column is made up of individuals like Michael Moore who consider our terrorist enemies “freedom fighters” and “patriots” and who want them to win. It could include former President Jimmy Carter, an ex-president who seems never to have met a foreign dictator he didn’t like and trust, and who along with Al Gore is responsible for ending a fifty year tradition of bi-partisanship in foreign policy in this country breaking ranks in the middle of a war. Accepting a Nobel Prize that was designed as a rebuke to a sitting American president in a time of war reveals a failure of judgment and a failure basic loyalty to this country and its citizens who are presently under terrorist attack that should bury Jimmy Carter’s name in everlasting disgrace. He is the self-selected leader of the fencesitters in this momentous hour of our destiny, unable to decide whom to fear more: Osama bin Laden or George Bush.

Andrew Sullivan has supported John Kerry for president in this election (his editorial can be read following this one). Andrew regards Kerry as the “lesser of two risks.” Andrew’s endorsement has elicited a number of emails to this site renewing the calls for his excommunication. Readers of FrontPage who feel this way, and those who don’t, need to bear in mind two things. First this election is not a referendum on whether to retreat or surrender in the war on terror, as it would have been if the candidate had been Howard Dean or the John Kerry of the primary season. As a result of Kerry’s final – and oh so cynical -- turnaround in the general election, it is about who will fight the war on terror more ferociously and more efficiently. We can live with this choice.

Second, this is a season of poisoned politics and fierce divisions, which Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, as I have explained in Unholy Alliance have a lot to answer for. When our country is so divided in the midst of war, it is important that we keep the faith with those Americans who agree with us on the need for victory but disagree on who is the candidate to achieve that. We should extend this faith to all those Americans who love this country, including Democrats who have been confused in the last year and a half by a treacherous leadership and Republicans who do not understand the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror. These Republicans mistakenly believe that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. They are joined by conservatives who are suspicious of nation building, but have yet to suggest how a conservative policy that would have left Saddam in power could have contained the Islamic threat. These are patriots and belong in our camp.

There are worthy Democrat who belong there too. Joe Lieberman should have been the Democrats’ candidate for President. Dick Gephardt would have made an equally worthy leader. Both have been models of principle as potential leaders of the opposition, but have been silenced by the stampede of their party from the common purpose and its frenzy of hatred against the incumbent George Bush.

Andrew Sullivan – a sometime Democrat and sometime Republican -- has been one of the most forthright and insightful defenders of the war on terror generally and the war on Iraq in particular, and for this the nation is in his debt. He has a fine grasp of the achievements of President Bush in this war, which are on display even in his endorsement of the Democratic candidate, odd as that may sound and seem. But then this is an political season of odd passions and opinions.

In criticizing Bush for the Abu Ghraib embarrassment, Andrew has fallen prey to the massive campaign of sabotage of the war effort that has been conducted by the political left. CBS and the New York Times are the culprits in the exploitation of Abu Ghraib for the forces that are seeking to weaken us in the war on terror, not the President. Abu Ghraib was a minor if regrettable incident of the kind that happens in all wars. It was blown out of proportion by a leftist media that is more ready to confront George Bush than to confront Saddam Hussein or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That is the harsh but inescapable truth.

The sabotage against America’s war effort conducted by Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Michael Moore, the editors of the New York Times and most metropolitan news media is the most disgraceful episode in the history of American wars, bar none. Never before in our history has half the nation been taken out of a war in the midst of a war that we were winning and that we have to win. How many of the errors attributed to President Bush by Andrew and others that is attributable to the existence of this knife at his back, will take historians decades to sort out. The fact is that no President can be expected to fight a war with one hand tied behind him and one eye looking over his left shoulder without committing tactical blunders. (“If I take Fallujah and there are civilian casualties and a Muslim backlash, how will this be exploited by my unscrupulous political enemies in the opposition camp?”)

On the other hand, the President has blundered in one particular way that cannot be attributed to his internal foes. He has failed to sell the war adequately to the American people and to defend his left flank. In the presidential television debates, for example, he chided Senator Kerry for saying the war in Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. This “confuses” people the President said. It does more than that, Mr. President. If you are 18 or 19 and risking your young life in Najaf or Fallujah, surrounded by terrorists who want to kill you and get into heaven, and the leader of the Democratic Party says you shouldn’t be there in the first place, it does more than confuse you. It demoralizes you. It saps your will to fight. It gets you killed.

John Kerry, Michael Moore, the New York Times and CNN are getting Americans killed in Iraq and risking a terrorist catastrophe here at home, because of their pathological hatred of George Bush. And the President should be saying so. This Bush hatred is really a hatred of country in some cases (Michael Moore) and a pathological distrust of country in others (Kerry, the New York Times). The reason why Kerry should be defeated in this election is to deny these America haters and America distrusters a victory, to strike a blow at them.

But if John Kerry is elected he will not be an anti-war President. He will have to fight the war in Iraq and disappoint his anti-American allies on the left, who want us to lose. No sitting American President can back off this fight. We are in a war that we have to win and that we cannot leave, as we could in Vietnam. But Kerry will fight the war badly, not just because he does not understand it, or because to fight he will have to go against the grain of his record of thirty years of anti-military attitudes and his appeasement of our Communist enemies. He will fight the war badly because he is a man of extremely bad character, perhaps the worst presidential candidate in this regard ever. As a young man, he went to a war he didn’t believe and returned to betray his country and his comrades in arms; as a candidate in this election he has turned his view of the war 180 degrees around for a political calculation and jeopardized the lives of young men and women on the field of battle for political gain. This makes him not only the risky candidate, but the untrustworthy and reprehensible one.

David Horowitz is the author of Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, Regnery, October 2004.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: endorsement; fourmoreyears; gwb2004; horowitz; issues; nationalsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: b4its2late

Agreed. One must be patient, though. Heck, I voted for the traitor Jimmy Carter back in the day. And then compounded that faux pas by voting for John Anderson.

Sometimes it takes awhile for the scales to fall from the eyes.

21 posted on 11/01/2004 1:46:39 PM PST by annyokie ("I have a plan" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

Yes, Kerry is an antiwar president, but even he knows we have to fix up some sort of face saving arrangement in Iraq before bolting home with our tail between our legs. So he'll declare peace after going on his hands and knees to the UN and asking them to help arrange peace talks. And then he needs 40,000 new troops to help keep that 'peace'. So he'll draft 18 and 19 year olds who've just been foolish enough to vote for him. They'll end up as cannon fodder and wonder what the heck happened. Stupid is as stupid does, and if Kerry's elected because droves of airhead college kids voted for him, they'll end up in Iraq or Haiti or Somalia or the Sudan. And they'll deserve it.

22 posted on 11/01/2004 1:47:01 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annyokie

Let's just hope that we aren't at the end of Rome. After all, Clinton is considered the Ozark Caligula.

23 posted on 11/01/2004 1:47:33 PM PST by NotADove (My heroes wear fatigues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


You are so right. Kerry as president will mean death to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans. But first, he'll play out the peace at any price game with bin Laden, et. al. We will give up freedom and sovereignty to these cave dwelling ignoramuses. Inch by inch, they'll take over this country until Islam rules. Taliban redux. But by then Kerry and the missus and Edwards and that fat harridan he's married to will have fled to Capri or the Cayman Islands. We'll have to fight a determined, brainwashed, homicidal enemy entrenched among us, and it won't be a walk in the park.

24 posted on 11/01/2004 1:50:48 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NotADove

Not to worry. If you read James Taranto over on WSJ online, he regularly posts about the Roe effect; our girls have far fewer abortions than the dems. Thus, we are compounding our base while they are decimating thiers.

I have done my duty with providing three future Republicans.

25 posted on 11/01/2004 1:52:32 PM PST by annyokie ("I have a plan" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson