{"id":62,"date":"2008-09-06T07:26:03","date_gmt":"2008-09-06T07:26:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=62"},"modified":"2008-09-06T07:26:03","modified_gmt":"2008-09-06T07:26:03","slug":"getting_ones_head_straight_by","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=62","title":{"rendered":"Getting One’s Head Straight by By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson"},"content":{"rendered":"

These are excerpts from an article in Front Page Magazine<\/a>.  It’s a very<\/u> long article, and I have tried to grab just the heart of it.<\/p>\n

The article was a rebuttal to an article by Michael Isikoff on the recent book on the Iraq War by <\/strong>David Horowitz (with Peter Collier).  The first part of the article is Michael Isikoff’s book review, the second (parts of which are quoted below) is the answer to the charges by FrontPage Magazine.<\/p>\n

“The real question for critics like Michael Isikoff, who oppose the war, is this: Do they believe that if the <\/span>United States<\/span><\/b><\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region> withdrew its 150,000 troops from the Iraqi border in 2003 Saddam Hussein would not have proceeded to develop WMDs and use them? The Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam would have developed them as soon as sanctions were lifted. Does Isikoff believe the <\/span><\/b>United States<\/span><\/b><\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region> could have kept 150,000 troops on the Iraqi border indefinitely in order to use them when Saddam developed nuclear weapons? Does he think that invading a power that possessed nuclear weapons would be more prudent than invading a power that was planning to get them? Is this the case he wants to make? He should make it then, instead of throwing up red herrings like aluminum tubes and <\/span><\/b>Niger<\/span><\/b><\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region> uranium deals – which is precisely what we argued in our book.” <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

“The real issue is what the Democrats knew about the intelligence debate, not the public. The Democrats voted to use force, endorsed the war, and then within three months – three months!<\/i> – turned against it and attacked it calling their own country an aggressor nation, their president a liar who sent American youth to die for no reason, and U.S. troops bloody occupiers and war criminals. In defense of this betrayal, the Democrats claim that Bush manipulated the intelligence and deceived them. But this is demonstrably false. It is itself the biggest lie of the war. As the major opposition party in a democratic nation, the Democrats had full access to the intelligence debate and participated in it. Isikoff’s confusion of “the public” with the Democratic leadership has the effect of amplifying the confusion that sustains the Democrats’ claim that they were duped.”<\/font> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

“But unlike the public, the Democrats had access to all the intelligence information the government had. The Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the CIA and <\/span><\/b>America<\/span><\/b><\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region>‘s other intelligence agencies. In other words the Democrats knew<\/i>, or if they didn’t know all they had to do was ask CIA chief George Tenet – a <\/span><\/b>Clinton<\/span><\/b><\/st1:place><\/st1:City> appointee — and he would have been required by law to tell them.” <\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

To me, the bottom line here is simple.  We are fighting a war on terror, and one political party has consistently undermined OUR<\/u> Commander-in-Chief and his ability to conduct that war.  If you read the old Communist Party documents on how to defeat a country, their first aim is “if you cut off the head of the snake, the snake dies”.  We need to be very careful about what we say and do at this time.  We live in a very dangerous world, and it’s not always about us or our politics<\/u>.<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

I have linked to the entire article above–it is interesting reading.<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

These are excerpts from an article in Front Page Magazine.  It’s a very long article, and I have tried to grab just the heart of it. The article was a rebuttal to an article by Michael Isikoff on the recent book … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=62"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=62"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=62"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=62"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}