You are herecontent / David Horowitz Calls Me and Cindy "Disloyal, Repugnant, and a Threat to Our Peace"

David Horowitz Calls Me and Cindy "Disloyal, Repugnant, and a Threat to Our Peace"


Cindy, the War in Iraq, and Dissent in a Time of War
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 19, 2005

Joining Frontpagemag.com today to debate Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign and what constitutes legitimate debate in a time of war, are:

David Swanson: the creator of MeetWithCindy.org, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. He obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997. His website is www.davidswanson.org;

and

David Horowitz: publisher of Frontpagemag.com, a nationally known author and lifelong civil rights activist. He was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the Vietnam war at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. He is the author of Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

FP: David Swanson and David Horowitz, welcome to Frontpage's debate: Cindy, the War in Iraq, and Dissent in a Time of War.

Mr. Swanson, let's begin with you.

Do you think Ms. Sheehan’s campaign is a legitimate one in a time of war?

Swanson: I think anyone should have the right at any time to speak out against any war and any government. I think the First Amendment to the US Constitution will back me up on that as far as this country goes, and I read in it no mention of restricted rights in “time of war.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you have nothing good to say then say nothing at all. I have nothing good to say to you David Horowitz. I will honor my father who gave me that advice and keep my hands off the keyboard.

You must be crazy Horowitz! The only threat to our peace is the lying, war-mongering Bush administration.

To be called such names by David Horowitz is an honor greatly to be desired. I trust that you will express your undying gratitude in an appropriate manner.

It sounds to me like Horowitz has lost his mind. I don't think the people of England would say the Iraq war has contained terrorism at all.I guess Mr. Horowitz doesn't consider the London bombings a terrorist attack, and as far as I'm concerned fighting them in Iraq before we fight them here makes no sense. If we take care of our country and stop messing in everyone else's business we won't have a terrorist threat.Good job David.

That was my first thought exactly. He's gone mad.

I wonder how much he's getting paid by the war machine
to continue this incredible charade.

Has anyone ever read Horowitz's "How to Beat Democrats and other Subversive Ideas" or gone to any of the political workshops based on this model?

When I was doing my research on "The Right Man Psychology" and working out my Machiavellian counter-strategies, I attended several
of these workshops. Quite enlightening and very disturbing.

My impression is that his views are much in line with such strategies as Miyamoto Musashi's "A Book of Five Rings" where the objective is to "WIN" at all costs and do most of your work in the shadows.

At least with Musashi's work and pre-PNAC 1800s white-supremist Machiavellian strategist Albert Pike, there was at least some "code of honor" that permeated the work. With Horowitz's model, I find only the coldness of a "Guide for For Sharks - Political & Corporate."

So, this article wasn't very "surprising" to me, just the usual
"disturbing" and "very sad."

"Oh the shark bites
With its teeth my dear
And he keeps them
Pearly white"
- Best version ever, Steve Martin on Saturday Night Live ;-)

peace.

We will never change their minds. They are unable to see or think clearly about the facts. I have never seen this country so divided. I don't think W. is very successful as a uniter.

He is my enemy, you are my friends! Keep it up my liberal American infidels. With your help, the end is near! See you soon.

Speaking of "Threats to Peace", have you seen Rush Limbaugh's latest "I never said that" concerning his comparison of Cindy Sheehan with Bill Burket (the guy that provided CBS with Bush's National Guard "records")

(begin clipped article)
On the August 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed his August 15 comments about Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, were being misreported. Media Matters for America noted that on his August 15 broadcast, Limbaugh compared Sheehan to Bill Burkett, the retired Texas Air National Guard officer who provided CBS' 60 Minutes with unauthenticated documents regarding President Bush's National Guard record, arguing that "her story is nothing more than forged documents."
(end clipped article)

Full story:
(http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180002)

Don't you just love dealing with people who can just never EVER be "wrong" about anything? Ah, the "Right Man" dysfunctional psychology and it's "crazy making" effects on society.

"We will teach our twisted speech
To the young believers.
We will train our blue-eyed men
To be young believers"
- "Clampdown" -The Clash from London Calling

peace.

We would all agree (well, 98% of us) that there is/was a terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden called Al-Qaeda and that they were involved in the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Of course, as we look to FIGHT that organization, the logical place was where they were based (with implicit government support) and training in Afghanistan. So, whether a pacifist or militarist, an invasion of Afghanistan and attempt to destroy the infrastructure of the organization and capture its members could be viewed as an "appropriate" response, especially if that government was unwilling to turn over the perpetrators.

But, after the Afghan war, there was a problem (well, a whole lot more than one) and that was that NOW, the terrorists weren't CENTRALIZED in any location -- they were decimated and those that remained were spread out across the world, especially the Asian, and east-Asian regions.

So, how to get them CENTRALIZED again, so we could continue to destroy them?

Well, one strategy would be to invade a middle-eastern country with a strategy designed to create a long-term (20-30 year) American presence of troops and bases. After all, one of bin Laden's major goals was to get the US troops out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east. Putting 150,000 IN would surely upset their sensibilities and drive them to congregate and perform terrorist acts.

So, Bush and the PNAC neo-con nutjobs in Washington decided to attack Iraq to CREATE the lie they originally told. That is, they said that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the USA, which it wasn't, but by attacking Iraq, they MADE Iraq into a training ground and congregation point for terrorists and now their lie is true.

But, come on, if Bush had said to the American people that we were going to invade Iraq to "infuriate" the terrorists into attacking us so we could kill them -- he would have been laughed out of office and the votes of no-confidence in the Congress would have been massively against him.

It's all about lies, damned lies, and evil plans for global domination.

Oh, and btw, David Horowitz is delusional.

My advice to David Swanson is this old rule: "Don't wallow in the mud with a pig, you'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it."

Nobody with any CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS is reading Horowitz' site (I went there this once to see what was going on, and I won't be back and felt like I needed to shower afterwards), so why bother presenting REASONED arguments.

These people have ADMITTED that they don't believe in "reality" but would rather create their own. Their plans in Iraq have shown that on occasion, they can be successful if we don't call them on their delusions, or are willing to sacrifice our kids so they can play their war games.

The time to start demanding that people THINK rather than just speak is now.

Charlie L
Portland, OR
CLL2001@gmail.com

Guess I'm in that lonely 2% . . .

I still don't buy into the "al Qaeda" mythos, but that's just me.

"It's not easy being green"
- Kermit the Frog

peace.

Not to mention that anyone who is open minded enough to actually take a look at all the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job...will come away concluding that al Qaeda, whether it exists or not, was a mere patsy in the elite power game.

Heck, yeah! Even one of W's own top people from the first term, Morgan Reynolds, is now making a strong case that the towers and WTC 7 had to have been brought down by controlled demolitions (which take weeks or months to set up):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

David: Why give these people the time of day? Front Page, Fox News, and others are organs of the Republican Party, not journalistic enterprises. If you participate in their events, appear on their shows, grant them interviews, or even watch/read them, you give them legitimacy. Don't, please.

to that argument, and even more so to the argument that it's simply a waste of time -- especially with the smaller outlets like horowitz'. Sadly, Fox News already has a lot of "legitimacy" with a lot of people, and we have to reach them somehow, and getting the American left to build its own media is an endless struggle that we've not yet won. Plus, hell, I enjoy arguing.

but what would happen if all elected Dems politely declined to appear on Fox News? Run by Roger Ailes, of all people, this network is clearly part of the Republican campaign effort. Appearing there is akin to appearing in Republican campaign commercials.

Cindy Sheehan has decided not to appear on O'Reilly's show, and I think this shows that she gets it. I'm sure some pols go on Fox because they want any exposure they can get, and I'm sure they think they can convince some Fox Viewers. I wish they could see that it is counterproductive.

We must have them worried.

You liberalistas really have trouble with facts. Keep it up!

Can't wait for '08!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.