Horowitz: Democrats are "apologists for terrorists," "leftists now support[] Hezbollah"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, David Horowitz claimed that Democrats are "apologists for terrorists" and that "the [Joe] Lieberman campaign is the final nail in the coffin of any kind of a centrist Democratic Party." Horowitz also said that "leftists now support[] Hezbollah."
On the August 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing activist David Horowitz claimed that Democrats are "apologists for terrorists and directing all their fire at the United States" and that "the Lieberman campaign is the final nail in the coffin of any kind of a centrist Democratic Party." In addition, when asked by co-host Alan Colmes if Democrats are "more of a threat to our well-being ... than people from overseas who want to kill us," Horowitz replied, "Put it this way. The terrorists wouldn't be such a threat if it weren't for ... the fact that, in this country, we have people that want us to lose this war." Horowitz added, "We have leftists now supporting Hezbollah." Referring to his most recent book, co-authored with Richard Poe, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nelson Current, August 2006), he claimed that in the "next phase" of the "radical," "left-wing Democratic Party," businessman Ned Lamont, now Connecticut's Democratic senatorial candidate, "will draw a huge amount of money from the Soros 'Shadow Party.' " Horowitz later asserted that the Democratic Party "apparatus is not important anymore" because of "the websites," "the Soros billions," "the 527s and the 501(c)(4)s," and "other entities that Soros ... controls and that includes the whole radical movement."
Contrary to Horowitz's claim that anti-Iraq war elements of the Democratic Party constitute a "radical movement," Media Matters for America has previously noted that recent polling shows that most Americans, not just Democrats, believe that the Iraq war was a mistake and that the United States should withdraw. Further, Media Matters also recently exposed the doctored and misrepresented quotes, misstatements, and false and previously debunked claims in The Shadow Party.
From the August 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: And joining us now, the author -- joining us now, the author of the new book, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, David Horowitz, and author and Rolling Stone contributor, Robert Dreyfuss. David, I find it fascinating first of all, [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY], David, was a Goldwater girl in 1964, and you say in the promotion for your book, "America's under attack, institution and values under daily assault, and the culprits are not foreign terrorists. They're influential and powerful Americans secretly stirring up disunion and disloyalty." Are you suggesting Democrats are more dangerous to America than -- than the terrorists are?
HOROWITZ: No, but the Democrats being apologists for the terrorists and directing all their fire at the United States and our -- our defenses against the terrorists are a serious internal threat now. What you have in the Lieberman campaign is the final nail in the coffin of any kind of a centrist Democratic Party. This is a left-wing Democratic Party. Ned Lamont in the next phase of it will draw a huge amount of money from the Soros 'Shadow Party', which includes MoveOn.org.
COLMES: What do you mean, "the Shadow Party"? I mean --
HOROWITZ: Well, the campaign --
COLMES: You're saying Democrats are more dangerous than terrorists. That is a ridiculous statement. Democrats are actually more dangerous, more of a threat to our well-being --
HOROWITZ: Well, put it this way -- put it this way --
COLMES: -- than people from overseas who want to kill us?
HOROWITZ: Put it this way. The terrorists wouldn't be such a threat if it weren't for their -- the fact that, in this country, we have people that want us to lose this war. This is what happened in Vietnam. It's happening again in Iraq, and it's happening again. We have leftists now supporting Hezbollah. The reason that we went after Saddam Hussein is obvious now, isn't it?
COLMES: Who? Who?
HANNITY: All right. Hang on a second.
HOROWITZ: It's to prevent -- it's to prevent Iraq from becoming Iran.
HANNITY: Let me, David, let me go into this. This is the whole premise of your book. What we see unfolding here tonight, what you is call a Shadow Party -- how Soros and Clinton and the '60s radicals -- they've now have taken over this party.
HOROWITZ: That's right.
HANNITY: This party, there's no room for any moderation in this party.
HOROWITZ: No, because the party apparatus is not important anymore. What's important is this extra apparatus. It's the websites. It's the Soros billions. It's the 527s, and the 501(c)(4)s, and those are just, you know, IRS names for other entities that Soros and -- controls and that includes the whole radical movement.
HANNITY: But does the war -- does the country know how extreme this party has become?
HOROWITZ: No, the country will wake up to this over time. I think the fact that Joe Lieberman, who is a very liberal Democrat, whose only sin is to have honored his commitment to defeating the terrorists in Iraq, is going to be purged from this party. That's basically what this is about.
The fact that many Republicans and conservatives appear to believe this is the end of the Democratic Party simply because Lieberman lost confirms to me that Lieberman was bad for the Democrats.
If Lieberman was so great, as they continually say, I am sure these guys were just lining up to vote for Gore/Lieberman in November of 2000.
Lieberman didn't listen to his constituents. He lost. Freedom is on the march.
Sounds like the conservative speak way of saying it's a "vast left-wing conspiracy".
More meaningless word games from dorks.
When will conservatives, maybe some enlightened ones have, I hope, begin to see these book peddlers for what they really are. Every point they make about some current event is always, ALWAYS, tied into the book they are currently hocking. Horowitz is doing it with this book - all his talk about the hijacking of the Democratic party just to jin up interest in his book and hopefully sell a few more copies to Fox viewers.
Next month, and even starting now, O'Reilly will do the same with his Culture Warrior book - he'll start blabbing about how the culture is going to hell in a handbasket and read his book if you want to fix it.
It's all so incendiary and insincere, it's pathetic. Peddle your book if you want to, I have no problem with that. But stop ratcheting up fear and creating some crisis out of a marginal and arguable issue just to sell your book. I wouldn't buy it for that reason alone.
well said TOMMY.
This has been a consistent point of yours (since I've been on this site) and you are, of course, correct.
I firmly believe in free speech... but, couldn't someone at least step in front of these bastards before they babble and say "what you are about to hear is complete bs... any relation to factual matters or current events is purely coincidental"
That would at least make me feel a little better.
..didn't you know?! Only liberals like Richard Clarke do that kind of stuff.
How many of us peaceniks out here are 60s radicals? I wasn't even born in the 60s, yet I still oppose this occupation of Iraq. We peaceniks have become the mainstream, live with it, man.
I demonstrated against the War in Vietnam from within the US and in the RVN. Needless to say, I've been against this one from before it started.
God bless your soul and keep on livin'
What is the Coulter Effect?
A right-winger makes a wild charge they can't back up, labeling anyone critical of *THE* *BUSH* as "defeatist," "traitorist," and so on.
Makesd tons of $$$ for the right-wingers making the wild charges, and they laugh all the way to the bank with all the $$$ they make from those suckers.
He pretty much perfected it back in the early 90s, then the local dittoparrots picked it up on talk radio, then came the army of Right Wing pundits on Cable TV...otherwise known as the Flying Monkeys. Ann Coulter and Rush are saying the same things; Rush is just less cartoonish than Ann, but only a little.
The problem is that the Left has no viable way to counter this BullSh*t Tsunami. Air America and MMFA, along with all the Liberal bloggers are putting up a valiant fight, but it's a fart in a windstorm. The GOP owns the Mainstream Media, and until we crack that nut, they'll continue to bury us.
When the revolution comes, the first thing on the party agenda should be to revisit the MSM ownership rules changed by the Bush administration through the son of Powell before he got kicked off the GOP plantation.
Time to break up the Murdoch empire.
It sounds to me as though the right wingers are petrified that they are going to lose Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. And I think they have good reason to be scared...
HOROWITZ: Put it this way. The terrorists wouldn't be such a threat if it weren't for their -- the fact that, in this country, we have people that want us to lose this war. This is what happened in Vietnam. It's happening again in Iraq, and it's happening again. We have leftists now supporting Hezbollah. The reason that we went after Saddam Hussein is obvious now, isn't it?
COLMES: Who? Who?
HANNITY: All right. Hang on a second. ---
When Horowitz starts to veer so far off track that even Fox faithfuls might wonder if he has a screw loose, Hannity saves the day and interferes and explains the "premise of the book".
"The reason that we went after Saddam Hussein is obvious now, isn't it?"
*scratching my head*
Kudos for the catch here, I didn't notice it at first and I didn't see the program but it appears that Horowitz' mouth got ahead of him and buddy Sean swooped in to save him from himself.
This is why I cannot watch this program. Talk about an apologist, Hannity defines it for the Republican party. And poor Alan Colmes, when he isn't sucking up to some conservative after just being dismissed and insulted as a dimwitted liberal, he bends over backwards to act sensible and centrist and comes off looking wimpy and ineffectual.
I watch reruns of some 80's sitcom for more intellectual stimulation.
HANNITY: But does the war -- does the country know how extreme this party has become?
I just love the slick way Seany tosses this out, as though he hasn't been (a) preaching this same hoo-hah all along, and (b) telling casual droppers-in to his radio show that liberals and Dems are marginal compared to true freedom loving Americans.
"Golly, Mr. Science! Can godless communists really use this series of tubes to change our Way of Life??"
I wrote the ugly freak to tell him what I thought.
I asked him how is it possible that I'm a liberal but I don't back Hezbollah?
I asked why, if all the biggest disasters in recent history have happend on bush's watch, are the Democrats the ones soft on "terror," when all the evidence is to the contrary?
He's just a rightwing mouthpiece for the christofascist sickos. But I think we should always write these people and call them on their crap. Like it or not, they are dangerous.
When you are as far to the RIGHT as Horowitz is, you're not allowed to whine about the Center.
Horowitz hasn't seen the Center in a very long time.
"I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.” He continues with a strong lament against corporate influence in the news and the responsibility of the media in promoting active citizenship. He concludes “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”
Edward Murrow, CBS Newsman, 1958
Consider those words from a stalwart of Newsworthy and Investigative Journalism, who in our life time has probably had no equal. Murrow came of age when Radio was the 'technology of the day 'and he earned his stellar reputation while reporting from London via the BBC during WW2. TV became the Internet of our day yet Murrow still had the insight, integrity and patriotism to discern both its propensity for evil and enlightenment. The Press of today as exemplified by Fox, CNN, MSNBC et al are not the guardians of public discourse by which an informed citizenry is educated, informed and brought to an understanding of the issues of the day. They have prostituted the role the Founding Fathers had envisioned them to be as the guardians of TRUTH, a proverbial 4TH Estate where the citizenry could be assured of FACTS and not bloated opinions designed to confuse, obfuscate and ultimately dumb-down the American populace.
It has taken some four decades for US to reach this level of ignorance on a massive level. The blogosphere is challenging these treasonous titans of industry and where there is numbers, there is POWER. MMFA is to be congratulated for their position as a 'Rocky Balboa -like challenger to this deception.
And I might add, kudos to all of you for your well thought out insights as exemplified by the well -reasoned statements summarized in this post.
" We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men— not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. " Edward Murrow
[link to www.tv.com]
I wonder how many of these young mouthpiecs on the right even know the significance of Edward R. Murrow, leave alone even if they know who he is. "Oh, he's a friend of that left wing extremist radical George Clooney-who cares what Morrow says...our next guest wrote....".
Who buys these books? I mean, I dread to think of the kind of person who has a whole library composed of titles from authors such as Horowitz, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and so on and so on. Is this the only source of entertainment besides watching Fox News they have? Very sad.
I just want to know one thing. Who buys these books? I mean, I dread to think of the kind of person who has a whole library composed of titles from authors such as Horowitz, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and so on
- pjcarter
--------------------------------------------------------
Most are white males in their twenties or thirties who come from dysfunctional backgrounds involving sexual or physical abuse, drugs or alcoholism and their related problems. Other traits of this group include disorganised thinking, bipolar mode disorders, a feeling of resentment towards society brought on by their own failings, sexual frustrations, an inability to be social or socially accepted, overbearing parents, and a wild imagination that drags them into a fantasy world. They are frequently isolated and fill their time with daydreaming and compulsive masturbation. Their isolation breeds feelings of inadequacy. These feelings maybe masked by artificial success, but the hidden feelings run deep. Many of them have an abnormal dependence on mother, ulcerated relations with parents, hypochondria, grandiose delusions, severe depression, a general feeling of emptiness as to the future, an inability to take criticism, a general feeling of being mistreated, inability to assert oneself, parental taunts as to one's inability to be sufficient, mood disorders, and a general failure in attempts to succeed.
In summary, most are undiagnosed psychopaths suffering from chronic mental disorders with violent or abnormal social behaviors. Frustrated in their quest for dominance, Horowitz et al provide an explanation for their failure and direction for venting their fantasies.
I often skim over long quotes in posts, but yours I read slowly.
Try to imagine those words coming out of the mouths of our current MSM heads, let alone the Fox-holes.
If you are against terror why would you support either one? Both use terror tactics! Does it matter to the innocent child who just got his head blown off whether he was hit by a state- sponsored bomb or one launched by a militia?
It's your turn! Find your Hannitys. Hurl your insults. Count your dollars!
You managed to get Sean Hannity so worked up, he defined for you, what your book means! "Soros and Clinton - these sixties radicals - have now taken over this party."
I wonder if that's the same Clinton who went to Connecticut to campaign for Joe Lieberman? If Clinton holds so much sway, how come Lieberman lost?
Oh Boy! When our Cowboy President finally rides off into the sunset, I hope he takes his rodeo clowns like Sean Hannity and David Horowtiz with him!
...support sovereignty and self-determination. Those things we fought for back in 1776. We should not be in the business of denying it to others. As for Horowitz, he's on a crusade to purge the US of all non-conformist thought. Self-appointed right wing censor of academia, demanding that professors be fired for not being War Party or for teaching historical realities about US society to their students. Horowitz is in the censorship business.