David Horowitz on Book TV: Party of Defeat

bhkad · 05-11-08, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevydriver1123

I have a real hard time believing anyone who was a "former" socialist

I believe in the power of education and maturity to change wild-eyed radicals into passionate, rational, and in this case Conservative political & social observers.

If that doesn't seem reasonable, then ignore the source, judge the pudding by it's taste. Or, in this case, by the accuracy of the substantiated statements and/or the logic of the arguments.

Here's someone who might have as much reason to feel as you do but is able to see past Horowitz' past:

Quote:

“Having been one of David Horowitz’s more severe critics as a young officer in the foxholes of Vietnam, I can say with some authority that he is now bringing a message of national importance to the American people.”

- Major General JAMES E. LIVINGSTON, USMC (Ret.)
Recipient of the Medal of Honor

bhkad · 05-11-08, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

What does that have to do with the fact that he's a racist, hateful ass?

If you say he is I guess that's all that's needed for all of us to believe it.

Nevermind the fact that it's untrue and that the only hope you have of discrediting him is to smear him with ad hominems.

And why would you want to discredit him?

independent_thinker2002 · 05-11-08, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

If you say he is I guess that's all that's needed for all of us to believe it.

Nevermind the fact that it's untrue and that the only hope you have of discrediting him is to smear him with ad hominems.

And why would you want to discredit him?

Isn't that what Horowitz has done to Jimmy Carter?

danarhea · 05-13-08, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gipper

Horrowitz is someone I like because he's been on both sides of the fence. Same with Reagan, who was a staunch Democrat until the 60s. It sounds like a rather interesting piece.

I love John Stossel because he used to be rather liberal before becoming a very influential libertarian.

Reagan may have been a Democrat, but you never have called him a staunch Democrat by today's standards. Back then, you had Conservatives and Liberals in both parties, and Reagan was Conservative. The reason he left the Democrats is because he felt that the party was no longer serving the needs of Conservatives, although it took Barry Goldwater to convince him of that.

bhkad · 05-13-08, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Isn't that what Horowitz has done to Jimmy Carter?

I'm not aware of what he has said about Jimmy Carter.

bhkad · 05-14-08, 12:06 AM

From the video:

"...that's the whole point of the Bush Doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq. And 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and whatever, unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland, something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do, something the Japanese could never do, something no enemy in the last 150 years could do . And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat. Because Saddam Husein, after the Gulf War had put "Allahu Akbar" into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy - America, the Great Satan. He had tried to assassinate the President of the United States. He had held international conferences for terrorists. He had hosted Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, all of this Saddam Hussein had done. And so if you look out at the world with any modicum of responsibility, on 9/11, you'll see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States."

-- David Horowitz

bhkad · 05-14-08, 12:30 AM

And the following is part paraphrased and partial quotes from the same video comments by Horowitz.

Many Dems and media were upset that GWB would use the word, "Evil" to describe Iraq prior to the invasion even though the regime had murdered more than 300,000 Iraqis and buried them in shallow mass graves, dropped poison gas on the Kurds, had invaded two countries and even though Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War truce.

Al Gore, on Feb. 2, 2002, gave a speech following the President's State of the Union, "Axis of Evil" speech. In it he defended the President's use of the word evil. Here's what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat: "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself." And the US would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down.

The Democrats have betrayed their own war. They've betrayed their own country. They've betrayed their own men and women in the field.

The Cease Fire Truce ending the Gulf War were UN Resolutions 687 & 689 which stated in effect that, 'you will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build WMD's. And you will allow UN Inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you are not doing it because nobody in their right mind can trust you.'

Saddam systematically violated all of the UN resolutions until in 1998 he threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq.

Hillary Clinton once said that not only did she vote for the war, when she was defending her support for the war, because of the intelligence that the Bush Administration gave her but also because of the intelligence she got from the Clinton Administration.

independent_thinker2002 · 05-14-08, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

I'm not aware of what he has said about Jimmy Carter.

He has led the charge in calling him an anti-semite.

bhkad · 05-19-08, 01:37 PM

independent_thinker2002:

Instead of chasing after the bait you've planted, which would effectively derail the thread, I'm choosing to leave your comment unanswered.

Here's a readers' review of the book.

Quote:

5.0 out of 5 stars National Survival Under Threat, April 27, 2008
By Pat Goltz "PatGoltz" (Arizona, USA) - See all my reviews

With clarity and logic, together with detailed documented facts, Horowitz and Johnson trace the history of terrorism in America, and the responses of Democratic leaders to the nation's decision to defend herself decisively. Initially, Democrats recognized the threat, but eventually turned on the very decisions they had made, and the logic they followed, to knife our President and our military in the back. This recounting of the history of events up to 9/11 and subsequently shouldn't even be necessary. Anyone who has kept his eyes and ears open is aware of the facts. But many Americans insist on being willfully ignorant. Democrats have chosen to engage in treasonous actions for political gain.

The two authors point out that the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was based, not on the likelihood of Weapons of Mass Destruction existing in Iraq at the time, but on the evident intent and actions of Saddam to pursue the production of such weapons, and use them. And in addition, Saddam used WMD on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands, and the Iranians. Facts that show this are outlined clearly. Saddam had been given a truce, but the condition was that he would agree not to pursue WMD, and repeatedly Saddam broke this truce. The United States was patient for many years. Clinton saw the need to deal with him and said so. We also became aware that Saddam WAS cooperating with al Qaeda in particular, and terrorists in general. He was also moving with full steam to develop the very weapons programs he had agreed not to pursue. Going into Iraq was NOT for the purpose of harming the nation or the Iraqi people. It was strictly for the purpose of getting Saddam out of power. Numerous attempts to get him to comply with his treaty or step down and go into exile failed. The way in which the United States conducted the war showed that the intent was to depose Saddam, and every care was taken to protect the people of Iraq.

In the disinformation campaign that followed, a typical accusation was that the Baghdad Museum had been looted of 170,000 artifacts. In reality, there were only 170,000 artifacts total, most of which had been removed for safekeeping by staff. Only a few dozen were lost. But this type of information was never corrected, and was used to condemn President Bush. Also ignored was the fact that Saddam released all the criminals before he was deposed. Much of the subsequent violence was caused by these criminals. Disinformation was rampant, including that perpetrated by Joseph Wilson, who claimed that documents concerning purchase of yellowcake from Niger were forged months before he would have had access to them. Repeatedly, the authors show how the left used lies of their own to defame the President, who had been telling the truth all along. The complicity of MoveOn.org, Cindy Sheehan, other fellow travelers, and the media is also discussed. The book shows that the Red Cross and our military were also dragged through the mud.

This book will tell you what you need to know about the treachery, sabotage, and sedition of Democratic leaders. At this moment, it is a timely warning. Perhaps someday, we will be able to determine how many of our brave troops were murdered as a result of this relentless campaign. If we want to retain our freedoms and way of life, we MUST stand up to terrorists wherever they are found. This book will give you the facts that will help you to make a case against people who refuse to pay attention and who are intent on pursuing national suicide. For those of us who do not desire to share their intended fate, it is a must read.

Amazon.com: Party of Defeat: David Horowitz, Ben Johnson: Books

05-14-08, 12:06 AM	#16
bhkad Sage Join Date: May 2007 Last Seen: Yesterday 09:19 PM Posts: 10,417 Thanks: 3,664 Thanked 1,640 Times in 1,090 Posts Total Awards: 1	Re: David Horowitz on Book TV: Party of Defeat From the video: "...that's the whole point of the Bush Doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq. And 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and whatever, unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland, something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do, something the Japanese could never do, something no enemy in the last 150 years could do . And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat. Because Saddam Husein, after the Gulf War had put "Allahu Akbar" into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy - America, the Great Satan. He had tried to assassinate the President of the United States. He had held international conferences for terrorists. He had hosted Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, all of this Saddam Hussein had done. And so if you look out at the world with any modicum of responsibility, on 9/11, you'll see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States." -- David Horowitz
	__________________ OBL 11/24/02

05-14-08, 12:30 AM	#17
bhkad Sage Join Date: May 2007 Last Seen: Yesterday 09:19 PM Posts: 10,417 Thanks: 3,664 Thanked 1,640 Times in 1,090 Posts Total Awards: 1	Re: David Horowitz on Book TV: Party of Defeat And the following is part paraphrased and partial quotes from the same video comments by Horowitz. Many Dems and media were upset that GWB would use the word, "Evil" to describe Iraq prior to the invasion even though the regime had murdered more than 300,000 Iraqis and buried them in shallow mass graves, dropped poison gas on the Kurds, had invaded two countries and even though Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War truce. Al Gore, on Feb. 2, 2002, gave a speech following the President's State of the Union, "Axis of Evil" speech. In it he defended the President's use of the word evil. Here's what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat: "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself." And the US would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down. The Democrats have betrayed their own war. They've betrayed their own country. They've betrayed their own men and women in the field. The Cease Fire Truce ending the Gulf War were UN Resolutions 687 & 689 which stated in effect that, 'you will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build WMD's. And you will allow UN Inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you are not doing it because nobody in their right mind can trust you.' Saddam systematically violated all of the UN resolutions until in 1998 he threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq. Hillary Clinton once said that not only did she vote for the war, when she was defending her support for the war, because of the intelligence that the Bush Administration gave her but also because of the intelligence she got from the Clinton Administration.
	__________________ OBL 11/24/02

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/31374-david-horowitz-book-tv-party-defeat.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Bush warns of Iraq disaster - Page 2 - Political Wrinkles	This thread	Pingback	05-14-08 03:34 PM