Skip to comments.The Left Revealed (Amazing Medved Show transcript: David Horowitz and Nation writer Daniel Lazarre)
Posted on 07/01/2005 2:12:58 PM PDT by Uncledave
The Left Revealed By FrontPage Magazine FrontPageMagazine.com | July 1, 2005
It isnt often that the Left is forced to reveal itself, but in this transcript of a Michael Medved Show segment with David Horowitz and Nation writer Daniel Lazare that is exactly what happens in regard to the Lefts de facto alliance with our terrorist enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. Lazare begins by denying the reality of this "unholy alliance" the title of David Horowitzs book but ends up by professing his support for both the insurgents in Fallujah and the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in the 1980s, as well as expressing his view that the terrorists who are fighting us are to be compared to the French Resistance fighting the Nazis during World War II. The transcript has been slightly edited for readability. No sentence of Lazares remarks has been substantively altered or omitted. The editors.
Announcer: And now America's number-one show on pop culture and politics. This is the Michael Medved Show.
Michael Medved: And another great day in this greatest nation on God's green earth, where one of the great questions that too many people don't want to face is the question about the American secular Left. The American secular Left would seem to have very, very little in common with the Islamo-fascist terrorists who menace the United States everywhere, and yet, there is does seem to be what David Horowitz has called an unholy alliance between radical Islam and the American Left.
That is the title of his new book, Unholy Alliance. He accuses the American Left running from Hollywood, through our universities, through the political system of soft-peddling opposition to Islamo-fascism and, in fact, to, in many ways, encouraging the enemies of the United States of America.
David Horowitz joins us now, and he is also going to be joined we are going to be joined, by Daniel Lazare, who is a writer for the Nation magazine, who emphatically disagrees with David's basic argument.
And, gentlemen, in the spirit of free and open and spirited debate, let me welcome both of you.
David, can you say just a few minutes about the main themes of Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, your new book?
David Horowitz: Sure, Michael.
Within about two weeks of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the most heinous attack on this country in its history, unprecedented, unprovoked, there were 250-odd demonstrations on American campuses against the United States responding militarily to these attacks. This movement, which some call a peace movement, grew much larger in anticipation of a war with Iraq which was a war to overthrow one of the monsters of the 20th century, who had filled mass graves with 300,000 bodies and used poison gas on Iraqs Kurdish minority. And this movement not only grew to a huge size before we went in, even though the president had gotten authorization from both parties, majorities in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, gone to the UN, gotten a unanimous Security Council resolution that Saddam had to disarm and provide a report showing that he had disarmed, and do it within 30 days or else, which he didn't do. Yet, there were in this country, there were probably a million people out in the streets to oppose Americas effort to make good on the ultimatum. These demonstrations and opposition continued and the attacks on the commander-in-chief grew greater and greater as the United States attempted to consolidate its victory and establish a democracy in Iraq.
This is very counterintuitive to what most people think about the Left. They think of the Left as standing up for human rights, and being against the fascist dictators.
Michael Medved: So very quickly, David, what does it reveal?
David Horowitz: Well, it reveals that just as in the Cold War we had a very large Left that supported the Communist enemy, we now have an even larger Left since that old Communist, progressive Left has combined with Muslim radicals to create a much larger fifth column in this country which wants us to lose this war and the War on Terror generally.
Michael Medved: All right. Daniel Lazare, why is David wrong?
Daniel Lazare: Well, he's wrong on so many counts; I don't know where to begin.
First of all, it's one thing to protest the war, and it's one thing to criticize the protesters. But he's playing a very dangerous game when he accuses the protesters of being an alliance, a fifth column, an alliance with the Islamic fundamentalists of al-Qaeda and other groups. That's you know, in the '50s, that was pure McCarthyism, where anybody who spoke out against McCarthy was accused of being an ally of Joseph Stalin. And he's playing the same game. It's a very dangerous game, number one.
Number two, the people who participated in the war in Iraq were not supporters of Saddam Hussein, were not supporters of Osama bin Laden, or were quite horrified, obviously, as everyone was, by the offense of 9/11, and had no support for Saddam's regime in Iraq.
In fact, in David's book, he draws a hair-splitting distinction, saying that even though the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in the 1980s in his war against Iran, the U.S. didn't quite support Saddam Hussein. There's a distinction without a difference. And I can't understand why he's now tarring the Left with this same charge.
Michael Medved: Daniel, what about what David said moments ago about the fact that long before we ever decided to invade, some would say liberate, Iraq, there were already demonstrations against the war in Afghanistan, against any U.S. response. How do you explain those demonstrations long before Iraq even became an issue?
Daniel Lazare: Those demonstrations were not against any U.S. response; they were against the Bush administration's ready resort to military violence, which I think those demonstrations, the perspicacity of the protesters has been demonstrated incredibly well.
Michael Medved: David?
David Horowitz: Well, you know, you have to be very naïve to accept what's just been said here.
First of all, I grew up in the Communist movement. My parents were card-carrying Communists. And so I can speak with authority on this because everybody that I knew growing up was a Communist. They wanted the Soviet Union to win the Cold War, just as the people who have led the demonstrations against the war in Iraq understand that if the United States loses in Iraq the other side will win. Consider the people who have led the demonstrations against the war in Iraq. Leslie Cagan, the head of the coalition United for Peace and Justice, is a lifelong Communist. She's still a member of the Communist Party. She's a head of the moderate peace organization, United for Peace and Justice. Cagan is a pro-Castro Communist. The more radical group, International ANSWER and these are the two groups that have organized all the major demonstrations against the war is a pro-North Korean, Marxist/Leninist party, which has also defended the Serbian war criminal [Slobodan] Milosevic, and just about every horrific international figure of the last 50 years.
At the Columbia teach-in against the war, Nicholas DeGenova said right out that we should all wish for the United States to be defeated in Iraq. He wished for a million Mogadishus. He was cheered when he said that, because that's really what the Left thinks even though it puts on this false front which my parents were very good at, too that it's for peace and justice and so forth. But when you look at their actions, you can see that their actions show quite the opposite. They want America to lose.
Michael Medved: Daniel Lazare, let me just frame this for a moment. If David is correct in some of the things that he reports in his book, and I know that he is because these were widely disseminated news stories and I've actually heard some of the tape, if people say things like we need a million Mogadishus, Mogadishu, of course, referring to the 18 American special forces and rangers who were killed and dragged through the streets in Somalia, if somebody says that, isn't it safe to assume that the person who says that we need a million episodes like that is someone who hates America?
Daniel Lazare: Well, I'm sure. But I wanted to add, if I might, Michael
Michael Medved: Yeah, go ahead.
Daniel Lazare: Can I add this? I mean in David's book, David leaves out huge amounts. It's amazing. For example, the most important source of aggressive terrorist Muslim fundamentalism is Saudi Arabia, which has been an American client state since World War II. Osama bin Laden got his start in the jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which is a joint U.S./ Saudi/Pakistani enterprise. Now, the U.S.
Michael Medved: You appear to have just sort of shifted focus here.
Daniel Lazare: Really?
Michael Medved: Yeah. David made very specific allegations about the Communist associations, and the America-hating association of very prominent people who led the two leading peace organizations. Do you think that those charges are true?
Daniel Lazare: Leslie Cagan? I'm not sure. She very well may have been a Communist. I don't know.
David Horowitz: She is a Communist. She's on the national executive committee of the Committees of Correspondence, which is a splinter of the Communist Party.
Michael Medved: Daniel, if that's true, is that relevant?
Daniel Lazare: Is that true? Is it relevant?
Michael Medved: If it's true, is it relevant?
Daniel Lazare: It's relevant, I suppose, to but relevant to what? If there some relevance to something, I don't know.
Michael Medved: Relevance that maybe she hates America?
Daniel Lazare: But what does hating America have to do with supporting Islamic fundamentalism? I mean Leslie Cagan was the opposing side of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Michael Medved: All right. We will get back to this very important conversation, and I think you've just framed it very well, Daniel. Is there any important connection between hating America and supporting the international jihadist movement? That is part of the charge of David Horowitz's explosive new book. It's called Unholy Alliance. It suggests that the one point of commonality between the jihadi warriors, fundamentalists, and the American secular Left is common hatred for the United States. We'll talk about it coming up.
Announcer: The Michael Medved Show, MichaelMedved.com.
Michael Medved: On the Michael Medved Show, your daily dose of debate, we're privileged to welcome you to a rather extraordinary debate between two distinguished journalists, one of them my friend David Horowitz. He is the author of a new book called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. And representing the American Left, Daniel Lazare, who is a frequent contributor to the Nation magazine and very much a distinguished journalist in his own right.
All right. Daniel Lazare, right before the break, David Horowitz was talking a little bit about how some of the leading personalities behind the demonstrations against American foreign policy, what passes today for the peace movement, have lifelong careers, and this is something he delineates in his book, opposing the United States, favoring states like Cuba and even North Korea, and very, very radical anti-American states. You do not believe that that really is relevant or supportive of David's basic point, which is the sympathy and alliance between the American Left and the jihadi warriors who want to murder Americans?
Daniel Lazare: Precisely. I mean my point is that is that Im critical of American power. Osama bin Laden is critical of American power. But our criticisms are worlds apart. I mean I have no truck with Osama bin Laden. Obviously, I was as horrified as you were by 9/11. And to somehow say because I don't like the way America conducts itself and he doesn't like it, that, therefore, we have a commonality we have nothing in common, nothing. Philosophically, politically, in any way, we have nothing in common. And that goes for Leslie Cagan, too.
And if I could get back to my original point, in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden was on America's side in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Leslie Cagan was probably much more sympathetic to the Soviet point of view, as I was, too, frankly. So, therefore, I was opposing both the U.S. and Osama and Saddam Hussein, by the way, who were all more or less in one camp.
Michael Medved: David Horowitz?
David Horowitz: Well, this is just sophistry. First of all, in my book, Unholy Alliance, I devote a lot of space to showing how parallel the views are of very prominent American leftists Noam Chomsky, [Howard Zinn], Eric Hobsbawm, and even so-called moderates like Todd Gitlin, who would be appalled at being associated with International ANSWER and other holy rollers who actually buy the North Korean position. The common thread between them and what causes to them to accept the fact that they are giving practical aid to our enemies and helping them in their efforts to win the War on Terror is that they view America as the Great Satan. I also show how their critiques of America have actually have influenced radical Islam. The bin Ladenites, the Zarqawi-ites in the secular aspect of their indictments of the United States, follow the American Lefts party line. Its the evil corporations and the capitalist system that is the villain of the piece. Thats why they attacked the World Trade Center, Wall Street, and not, say, a collection of churches and synagogues.
The fact is that Osama bin Laden himself, on February 12 of 2003, which is about four weeks before the United States troops entered Iraq, said on Al Jazeera TV, the interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders. But, of course, it's not just words; it's deeds that link American leftists to the Islamic jihad. What were all those people doing out in the streets demonstrating so soon after 9/11 against an American military response to a military attack? And then a million of them not just demonstrating for peace but denouncing George Bush as Hitler, and America as the real Axis of Evil? What were Leslie Cagan and Medea Benjamin, two of the most important leaders of the so-called peace movement, doing organizing Iraq Occupation Watch to incite American soldiers to defect, and using a Saddam Hussein supporter to run their organization in Iraq?
If you read The Nation magazine, for example, (which I do) you could look at the last three years and not find any articles on how to win the War on Terror. What you find is articles attacking the United States and its role in the War on Terror. So their political deeds show them this is not an alliance of convenience because they don't happen to like a particular way a war was decided, although this war was supported by both political parties. It is an alliance of convenience with Americas opponents in the War on Terror because the Left itself is at war with America.
Michael Moore, of course, has said the terrorists aren't terrorists, they are patriots. I havent seen the The Nation magazine taking its distance from Michael Moore because he thinks Zarqawi, the beheader, is an Iraqi patriot and we're the invaders and hopefully, the terrorists will win. When has The Nation which regularly denounces George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld denounced Michael Moore?
Michael Medved: Do you, Daniel Lazare, do you back Michael Moore's statement?
Daniel Lazare: I don't know. I never heard Michael Moore's statement. Im not going to take David's word on what Michael Moore said. I'm sure it's being taken out of context. [Actually, the quote was on his website. The citation can be found in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left DH]
But in any case if you want to talk about sophistry, this whole phony game of drawing parallels is sophistry. I can draw parallels between George Bush and bin Laden, as well. They were, after all, on the same side in the '80s in Afghanistan. They're both religious zealots, for example. They both believe in fighting Communism. So, therefore, using David's logic, I could somehow join a quotation.
Michael Medved: But wait. There's a difference Daniel Lazare, with all due respect, there is a difference here. Let me cite for you something that happened recently since David's book, Unholy Alliance, came out, which is that in Chile when President Bush visited Santiago, the demonstrators there demonstrated with hammer and sickle signs and headbands, and someone was holding a very large sign that said, "Hang on, Fallujah." Now, do you think that do you feel some sympathy for the so-called insurgents in Fallujah?
Daniel Lazare: Oh, absolutely yes, total sympathy, total solidarity.
Michael Medved: You do?
David Horowitz: So who's the sophist here?
Daniel Lazare: Of course, absolutely. The insurgents in Fallujah are repelling a foreign invasion. They have every right to do it. Now, Im not going to support every last action by every last fighter there, obviously, but certainly they have a right to repel a foreign invasion of their country.
David Horowitz: The people Lazare is referring to are the terrorists, of course; they're not the Iraqi people. They're a tiny minority of Sunni Muslims who are really upset because a monster has been taken down their monster. This is the same ruse leftists used to rationalize their support for a Communist victory in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh an operative of Stalins Comintern who spent most of his life in Paris was alleged to be the George Washington of Vietnam. Here we have a classic example of how the Left operates. Daniel Lazare is defending the Sunni terrorists in Iraq the oppressors of the Iraq people and pretending that he's doing it in the interest of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people the Shiites, the Kurds, the vast majority of the Iraqi people hate the insurgents that we're fighting in Fallujah, but the American Left is choosing that side, the terrorists side, of this war.
Michael Medved: Okay, Daniel Lazare?
Daniel Lazare: Are you aware, David, that the other Nazis routinely referred to members of the French Underground as terrorists during World War II?
Michael Medved: Wait, are you just comparing .? We have to take a break. When we come back, Daniel Lazare, I want you to think very carefully about whether you want to compare the people in Fallujah, who do regularly blow up Americans, civilians, schoolchildren, power plants, women, and children, if you want to compare those people to the French resistance to the Nazis, which you just did. If Daniel Lazare stays with that, I'll be surprised, but I've been surprised before. We'll be right back with David Horowitz, author of Unholy Alliance, and Daniel Lazare.
Announcer: The Michael Medved Show, MichaelMedved.com.
Michael Medved: David Horowitz has written another provocative new book, which we're talking about on the Michael Medved Show. It is called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. How do I know it's a provocative new book? Because it's already provoked our other guest, Daniel Lazare, frequent contributor to The Nation magazine to say, number one, he feels total sympathy and support for insurgents in Fallujah and compares those insurgents to the leaders of the French resistance to the Nazis in World War II. Daniel, are you sure you want to stick with that comparison?
Daniel Lazare: Yeah, I'm very happy to, actually. Now, let me just let me just establish a few ground rules here. To draw a comparison is not to draw an equation. So, obviously, there are great differences between the Underground and resistance in Iraq and resistance in France during World War II.
One of the most important differences is that the political that politically the Iraqi resistance is dominated by Islamic fundamentalists.
In France and I'm not sure that Dave is going to like this very much in France, it was dominated by the French Communist Party. But the French Underground did assassinate soldiers, assassinate collaborators, blow up trains, in which innocent civilians were traveling on. I don't necessarily support those actions, by the way, just as I certainly would not issue a blanket statement of support for the actions of the Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq. But I certainly do believe that the Iraqis have every right to repel a foreign invasion. And so, in that sense, in that sense alone, I solidarize with them entirely.
Michael Medved: David?
David Horowitz: Yeah, the other side of the comparison, of course, is the operative one: we are the Nazis. Dan Lazare wants us to lose in Fallujah, which is just what I said at the outset of this program that the Left wants America to lose the War on Terror (and therefore wants the terrorists to win). He simply dismissed my claim but now he has validated it. Daniel Lazare represents a huge segment of the American Left, which wants America to lose the War on Terror and which compares America to Nazi Germany. That's the comparison. The idea that we have invaded some innocent country, by the way is absurd. Weve been at war with Iraq since 1991, and they violated the terms of the truce that ended that war. Thats why were there.
Iraq invaded two countries: Iran and Kuwait. The truce that ended that war was sealed by UN resolutions, which Saddam then proceeded for ten years to systematically violate. We flew planes over that country daily in order to protect the Kurds from being gassed by Saddam's air force. He was given an ultimatum by the UN Security Council on November 8, 2002, which he didn't meet. Thats the legal basis for this war, even though the Left chooses to ignore it.
In their hearts, these leftists hate America, and they want any enemy, even if it's as horrible an enemy as Zarqawi, to triumph over us. And they will use all manner of sophistry to excuse and defend their position and say, Oh yes, were critical of this and that in terms of what they do. We didn't actually like them blowing up the World Trade Center, because that gave a propaganda victory to the United States, and we don't like Zarqawi beheading people, because that makes it harder for us to sell their cause. But these are minor points for them, that pale beside the fact that America is Nazi Germany. The clear allegiance of leftists like Lazare is with the enemy and against the United States. And this is true of hundreds of thousands of American leftists who get a pass, of course, from our media, because our media is so predisposed to support them. My book is addressed to this very problem.
Michael Medved: Daniel Lazare, would you like to see the elections scheduled for January 30 in Iraq fail?
Daniel Lazare: I'm totally opposed to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq. Therefore, I would no more support U.S. elections than I would support German elections in France during World War II.
Michael Medved: So you're sticking with this comparison of the United States to Nazi Germany?
David Horowitz: He is, because he believes it in his soul.
Daniel Lazare: I believe it. I believe it entirely.
David Horowitz: I think the audience has had a good look at how the American Left dissembles. Unless it is called to account by people who know what they're talking about, they will pretend to be civil libertarians, they will pretend to be democrats, they will pretend to be for peace. They will pretend to be humanitarians. But what they really are is America-hating totalitarians who want the enemy to win.
Michael Medved: Okay, we just heard something stunning here, and I want to pursue it as soon as we come back. Daniel Lazare of The Nation magazine has said that he does believe in his heart and in his soul that America is like the Nazis in World War II. I want to pursue that belief because that's one of the points that David Horowitz makes in his book, Unholy Alliance, that the hatred for the United States the comparing Bush to Hitler, and America to the Nazis has helped to bring together extreme religious fanatics in the jihadi movement with a different kind of fanatics on the American Left. We'll continue the conversation coming up.
Announcer: To order a copy of today's show call 800-468-0464. This is the Michael Medved Show.
Michael Medved: On the Michael Medved Show, one of the great things about spirited debate is it can be clarifying, eye-opening. I think that's what we have here with two impassioned advocates for very different points of view. One of them, David Horowitz, is an author of many, many books. His autobiography, Radical Son, is one of the outstanding autobiographies, I happen to believe, over the last many years. And David has written a new book. It is called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.
Representing and attempting to defend the American Left is Daniel Lazare. He is a frequent contributor to The Nation magazine. He has a new book of his own, which is coming out in a couple of months. It is called Render Unto Caesar, and I understand, Mr. Lazare, that this is a book about how monotheism, the great faiths of the West, have outlived their usefulness. Is that a fair description?
Daniel Lazare: Yeah, yeah, it's pretty fair.
Michael Medved: Okay. This is what I find so clarifying about this. Very often, when I have people representing the Left on this radio show, they dissemble, they hide. You're straight out there. You've said unequivocally you think America today in Iraq and presumably around the world is like the Nazis under Hitler.
Daniel Lazare: Well, actually, I'll go further. No, I think David and you, too, Michael, have done a really great service. You really have clarified things really, very well. I don't say that Bush is Hitler. I'm not drawing an equation, obviously, but I am drawing a comparison. And not only am I drawing a comparison that his attack on Iraq was comparable to Hitler's on Poland, but I quite agree that the millions of people who took to the streets in protest against the invasion of Iraq were motivated by this perspective. That was precisely why they took to the streets because they saw in Bush's actions a frightening parallel with the events that occurred, what, 65 years earlier in Europe. And so he's absolutely correct. I think Hitler had probably more reason to attack Poland than Bush had to attack Iraq.
Michael Medved: David Horowitz?
David Horowitz: Well, I hope people are listening because this is a validation of the case I have made in my book. And let me say
Daniel Lazare: It's not a validation of your book. That's not true at all.
David Horowitz: Well, it is. The delusional views of the Left about America that lead them into an alliance with our enemies is the theme of my book. How do people like Daniel Lazare acquire this delusional mentality and why do they cling to it? What does it consist of? What drives it? Unholy Alliance also examines the actual alliances that take place.
For example, there's a group called International Solidarity Movement, which is holding conferences on American campuses, recruiting college students to go to the Middle East and obstruct Israeli security officials who are trying to protect Palestinians and Israelis from Islamic terrorists. There is the National Lawyers Guild, which was created as a Communist front in the 1930s, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which provides all the lawyers attacking John Ashcroft over the terrorist detainees in Guantanamo. These groups, along with the ACLU, have organized more than 350 American cities to pass resolutions of non-cooperation with Homeland Security, and particularly, to forbid their police departments from cooperating with immigration authorities. Of course, our borders are our most vulnerable point in the War on Terror. These people are working for the enemy. And of course, if you think this country is Nazi Germany, the moral position would be to aid our enemies. But there are many Americans many in our listening audience out there who do not believe their country is Hitlers Germany. They need to understand these leftists are their enemies and will help people to kill them.
Michael Medved: Okay Daniel, why is David Horowitz wrong?
Daniel Lazare: Well, first of all, I was very careful. I didn't draw an equation. I said it repeatedly, I'm making a comparison, not an equation. Hitler Bush is not Hitler. Bush is not a Nazi. He's not a fascist. He's a very dangerous guy, but he's not that bad, okay?
Michael Medved: All right, let me let's get one thing clear here. Daniel, I take it from your comments here and some other material that I've read of yours, you would like to see America lose the War on Terror, is that not correct?
Daniel Lazare: Let me explain this, please. I think the War on Terror is totally bogus. I think terrorism is a meaningless word, okay? Terrorism is what the other guy does to us. It's never what we do to the other guy. If a bunch of West Bank settlers go rampaging through you know, shoot up a mosque, kill 35 people. That's never terrorism in David's book.
David Horowitz: Oh, I beg to differ with you.
Daniel Lazare: If guns were turned the other way, then, of course, it is terrorism.
Michael Medved: Okay, what would you like to see happen, Daniel?
David Horowitz: Wait a minute. Once a deranged Israeli did what Daniel Lazare referred to. One deranged Israeli, not a bunch of West Bank settlers. He was arrested, and he was tried. He was condemned, not cheered, by the Israeli population.
Daniel Lazare: That will put flowers on a grave, David. Come on. Come on.
David Horowitz: The point is it was condemned as terrorism. And it wasn't part of a systematic and widely supported effort to terrorize a whole population, as the terrorism committed by Daniels Palestinian friends is.
Michael Medved: Okay, Daniel Lazare, you would like to see what would you like to see happen regarding the Islamo-fascist movement?
Daniel Lazare: The Islamo-fascist movement?
Michael Medved: Yes, jihadi warriors that we are fighting right now.
Daniel Lazare: I want to see it defeated, obviously.
Michael Medved: What's that?
Daniel Lazare: I want to see it defeated, obviously, as I want to see the Jewish fascist movement and the Christian fascist movement defeated, okay?
David Horowitz: Whats that?
Michael Medved: Defeated by whom and how?
Daniel Lazare: By democratic forces, secular democratic forces.
Michael Medved: Such as? Who are the good guys in this
Daniel Lazare: Socialist forces.
Michael Medved: So are there any good guys currently engaged in trying to counteract the murderous Islamic extremists?
Daniel Lazare: Sure.
Michael Medved: Who are the good guys?
Daniel Lazare: I'm trying to do it.
David Horowitz: Oh, come on now. Look, there wasn't one demonstration in front of the Iraqi embassy in the entire lead-up to the war that said to Saddam, "Disarm. Obey the UN resolution."
Daniel Lazare: David, you're actually talking to one of the few leftists with the if I do say so myself
David Horowitz: Who demonstrated in front of the Iraqi embassy?
Daniel Lazare: You're actually talking to one of the few leftists, if I do say so myself, with the courage to defend the Soviet incursion in Afghanistan.
Michael Medved: Okay, you were pro-Soviet regarding Afghanistan, which is what you'd call a courageous position. It was certainly a lonely position given the levels of Soviet genocide, which is so far worse than anything America's even been accused of. But we'll be right back with Daniel Lazare and David Horowitz. The name of David's provocative new book, the subject for discussion, Unholy Alliance.
Announcer: The Michael Medved Show.
Michael Medved: And in today's debate on the Michael Medved Show, I'm trying to be fair, but I don't pretend to be impartial. I actually admire and recommend David Horowitz's book, Unholy Alliance, and David and I have been friends for years.
I don't know Daniel Lazare, but I appreciate his coming on the show and debating David regarding David's book, which is about radical Islam and the American Left. Daniel Lazare is a frequent contributor to The Nation magazine.
Gentlemen, if it is possible briefly to sum up the arguments that we've covered so far. David Horowitz, it's your book we're talking about, Unholy Alliance. You go first.
David Horowitz: Well, I appreciate this show because what this discussion has done is to validate the historical perspective of my book. When Daniel Lazare says that he supported the Soviet Communist invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which killed a million Afghan people, he completes the circle. I have tried to see what's going on in regard to the war in Iraq and the War on Terror, within the framework of the American Left that really got its foothold in America with the Russian Revolution in 1917. And this Left, which developed its institutions and its culture and its organizations during the Cold War and then the Vietnam War, has now gone into high gear with America's War on Terror. And all I ask is that people understand and Daniel has made very clear that these leftists, who supported the Communist enemy in the Cold War, are identifying with the very people we're fighting in the War on Terror. They think that we are we're the bad guys and we need to be defeated.
Michael Medved: Okay, Daniel Lazare?
Daniel Lazare: Well, first of all, my point was [indiscernible] the Soviets were fighting the Islamic fundamentalists and Afghanistan in the 80s, and it was the U.S., the Saudis, and the Pakistanis who were pouring money into the coffers of Osama bin Laden. And that truth has never come out. Certainly, David doesn't discuss it in this book. David tries to ignore it, but that is the great damning truth behind this whole episode. Al-Qaeda is, to a remarkable degree, a creation of Pakistani intelligence, which was backed every step of the way by the U.S. The Afghan the Mujahideen War ,was the most expensive, the biggest, the most ambitious CIA project in all the entire post-war period, and that's saying a great deal.
Michael Medved: Okay, so your basic position, as you've indicated, is sympathy for the Communists in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Fallujah. I hope, Daniel Lazare, that that doesn't lead you to applaud and to cheer when American Marines and civilians, Iraqi civilians, are blown up by those people, but your words leave me with no other conclusion.
David Horowitz's book is called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. You know, strange illustrations of the arguments in his book have been seen in this debate with Daniel Lazare in this greatest nation on God's green earth.
That really is stunning. The Left usually lies so well it's hard to see what they really believe. Lazarre does a poor job of hiding his beliefs. I won't say I'm surprised, but it's still shocking to see it stated so nakedly.
Is anyone else stunned by the obvious inconsistencies in Lazare's positions? One example is his assertion that he supports the "resistance" in Fallujah against the invasion of Iraq by a "foreign power" (e.g., the U.S.). And yet he supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What was that but an incursion by a "foreign power"?
Lazare is doing a lousy job playing dumb about his colleagues ties to communist party hacks, NK, Cuba, etc. "Duh, I don't know about these people's communist past" and try to dance around the uncomfortable fact.
thanks and major BookMark. Unbelievable. But great for me because Horowitz manages to place the entire Cold War/War on Terror in its proper perspective for me today. So articulate and eloquent. Thanks again.
"Daniel Lazare: Well, first of all, my point was [indiscernible] the Soviets were fighting the Islamic fundamentalists and Afghanistan in the 80s, and it was the U.S., the Saudis, and the Pakistanis who were pouring money into the coffers of Osama bin Laden. And that truth has never come out."
Could someone more educated in these matters tell me where he gets this from? Wishfull thinking? Or is there something to back that up? Through what means would the US be contributing money to OBL?
Segments like this are the reason I will never again listen to that other guy, what's his name, who's on at the same time. It's sort of like the difference between a fine wine and swampwater.
Oh. My. God....
How depressing! I thought we had moved beyond this kind of idiocy with the end of the Cold War, but apparently not!
You have to love the left's honesty: "we don't hate America, but America is the worst country on earth, and we wish to see it defeated by primitive, Islamo-fascist terrorists"...why do you question our patriotism?" These fools would be great comedians, if they weren't so transparent.
The ex-Soviet Union is entirely right to invade Afghanistan, but the U.S. is an imperialist pig for invading Iraq? It's only "logical" to a leftist. They live in their own little world of leftist, screwball fantasies. To expose them to reality and logic just causes them to go a little more batty.
That their primary consistency is in opposing the US is Horowitz's basic assertion, which is certainly validated in this exchange.
This doesn't surprise me. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the leftists, who hate both America and the West, had to come up with a new foreign ally. That they chose the extremist Muslims doesn't really surprise me. It occurred to me back in the 90's that they would choose the Muslims as their new allies.
No more Mr. Nice Guy...they want me and mine, and our way of life destroyed! Take off the GLOVES, and start WHACKING!
Very interesting. Thanks for posting!
Yowza! Looks like the writer for The Nation magazine wants to destroy the nation in which he freely chooses to live.
Here's another: He wants secular governments to rule, but he's willing to join the Islamo-Fascists to defeat a secular American government.
Lazare tried to explain it earlier in the debate. He mentions that Osama, the Saudis, Sadam Hussein, and the United States once worked together to stop Soviet expansion.
The American Left stains the air of this nation.
They have always acted against American interests when they were able to.
What part of WAR don't these leftist vermin understand?
Oh yeah, they DO understand!
They are just always on the Anti-America side.
leftie in the raw bump to you....
Jeeeeeeeesus. They're worse than I even imagined.
when the soviet union "collapsed", the communists went underground.
one group, as mentioned above, is the committees of correspondence (named after the american revolution. cute, huh?). they are big in orange co, ca.
"think globally, act locally" describes their activities. as horowitz points out above, they influence city councils, who are not necessarily aware of their allegiances.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The man is a liar. Anyone involved in politics, the media, or the blogosphere knew about Moore's comment.
Thanks for posting this article; it is most illuminating.
Wow is right! Too bad 97% of the US population will Never see or hear this.
Sean needs to have David Horwitz on again.
I like it