more insane ranting
“ ...David Horowitz's fiery manifesto, which every American ought to read at a time when large elite sectors in the democratic world have turned against the United States. Such hatred was never evidenced against the Soviet or Chinese dictatorships or, for that matter, against Saddam Hussein. It is safe to say that, given a choice, these radical egalitarians would have preferred a return to the bloody days of Saddam and the incumbency of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to a Bush re-election victory. ”
Full Article
Arnold Beichman has produced an impressive collection of lies, unsubstantiated allegations, and insane right wing ranting for one little op-ed/book review. Expanding the lunatic fringe claim that opposing the Iraq War is un-American, Beichman praises David Horowitz's keen psychotic observations about the Liberal/Al Qaeda connection. That's pretty good considering we couldn't even find an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link.
Read On! |
 |
|---|---|
|
Democrats and those on the left hate America. "... large elite sectors in the democratic world have turned against the United States. Such hatred was never evidenced against the Soviet or Chinese dictatorships or, for that matter, against Saddam Hussein. It is safe to say that, given a choice, these radical egalitarians would have preferred a return to the bloody days of Saddam and the incumbency of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to a Bush re-election victory." |
Insulting, unsubstantiated,
and insane. McCarthyism for modern times. What egalitarians are these that would side with Saddam, Osama and the Taliban, besides those that once armed them? |
|
Norman Mailer is a spokesman for an elite left wing coterie that hates Bush, thus, America. The New York Review of Books is its journal. "These 'articles of faith' are part of Norman Mailer's ideological baggage and shared by the editors of New York Review of Books, writes the author." |
There may well be a handful of elderly lefties who subscribe to the smart but longwinded N.Y. Review of Books and remember who Norman Mailer used to be in American criticism, we don't know anyone today who claims Mailer as a spokesman. We would remind our proto-facist friends that disagreeing with Bush is in no way akin to hating America. It is exactly that vilification of informed dissent that is in fact un-American. |
| "Because the United States encouraged "uprisings" against Saddam which led to the slaughter. Proof? There isn't any." |
"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations." -- George Bush I, 2/15/1991. "The revolt took place with the encouragement of the president of the United States. The words of the president were followed by leaflets and broadcasts. People believed it. And when they rose up, they expected to get help and assistance from allied forces in the region." -- Erstwhile neocon ally Ahmed Chalabi, ibid. Not to mention the fact that Bush Sr. armed Saddam in the first place. |
|
The left is represented by shadowy fellow-travelers of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists. "The downfall of the Soviet Union and the global repudiation of communist ideology has spurred what Mr. Horowitz calls a 'Neo-Communist Left' alliance with 'Arab fascists and Islamic fanatics.'" [Horowitz says] 'Radicalism is a cause whose utopian agendas result in any ethic where the ends outweigh and ultimately justify any means.'" |
This is where Mr.'s Horowitz and Beichman plunge from your standard right wing nut blather to full tilt madness. Any examples of this liberal/Islamic axis? I didn't think so. . . Once again, opposing the Iraqi war, which has strengthened Al Qaeda recruiting world wide, is not the same as supporting Al Qaeda. Horowitz, Beichman, and many on the right are not above the use McCarthyistic ranting to attempt to tarnish opposing points of view. Hey, its much easier than logic and reason. An argument like - "You don't like tax cuts? Why don't you go hide in a cave with your buddy Osama!" - is really all they've got. |
|
Opposition to Bush's Iraq war plan constitutes hatred of America or an "alliance" with Muslim terror. "[T]here is another ally of Islamist radicalism, says the author: Democratic Party leaders. On April 10, 2003, the day after American forces liberated Baghdad, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told a press conference: "I have absolutely no regret about my vote [against] this war." The Democratic Party got its answer Nov. 2. Clearly American voters did not approve of even a hint of an alliance between radical Islam and the Democratic Party left." |
The more blunders we make in Iraq, the more fervently the right will defend every last one of them. Why couldn't Bush admit, in the second debate, any mistakes at all? Like misleading a nation into war, for example. It's been two years since the drums of war, and now the facts are in. No WMDs. No Al-Qaeda. No yellowcake. No anthrax drones. No imminent threat. Instead, we have a thousand
dead soldiers and a genuine quagmire with no end in site. |
Arnold Beichman has produced an impressive
collection of lies, unsubstantiated allegations, and insane right
wing ranting for one little op-ed/book review. Expanding the lunatic
fringe claim that opposing the Iraq War is un-American, Beichman
praises David Horowitz's keen psychotic observations about the Liberal/Al
Qaeda connection. That's pretty good considering we couldn't even
find an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link.
But sadly enough, this column is all too typical of our fulminating
friends on the right, in its use of unsubstantiated (even wacky)
claims to vilify the great left wing phantom and anyone else that
divergent opinions. Just a few paragraphs sheds light on the anti-intellectual
current in right wing thought. What's really mind boggling is that
people actually buy this crap.
comments@polianna.com
