Diana West Invents a New Conspiracy


rebuttal for blogDiana West is still on the attack over my decision to remove a review from Frontpage that could be looked at as endorsement of her embarrassingly kooky book which has pulled the wool over a number of conservative eyes. Her attack which is published today on Breitbart.com accuses Ronald Radosh and me of trying to “suppress” her views because we are closet liberals and pro-communists.

It is a political truism that cover-ups often turn out worse for the guilty parties than the faults they seek to hide. So it is with Diana West’s campaign of slander against Ronald Radosh and myself because she is incapable of answering our criticisms of her poorly conceived, ill-informed, conspiracy mongering book.

She is incapable of responding to the specifics of our critique – her misrepresentation of the pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins as an actual Soviet spy, her preposterous claim that Lend-lease and D-Day were Soviet plots or that the decision shared by Winston Churchill to suppress the facts of the Katyn massacre was a Kremlin design. So she accuses us of a conspiracy to suppress her work because it challenges the “liberal consensus.”  This is a consensus that denies the sorry history of Communist subversion, infiltration and malevolent anti-Americanism. According to West we decided to conduct “a scorched earth policy to preserve and protect the conventional narrative as promulgated by mainstream academia.”

If you are not already laughing, you should be. Radosh and I have collectively spent 50 years writing several million words and nearly twenty books attacking the liberal consensus, and exposing the anti-American agendas of radicals and Communists, specifically those who infiltrated and finally took over academia.

West has a revealing answer to such objections:

“‘But FrontPage is a conservative site,’ I can hear people say. This stopped me, too, at first. Then I realized that the books Radosh cites in his ‘take-down’–not to debate my ideas, but to impugn them–are written by academics from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. That’s liberal academia.”

That’s her answer! Here we have West’s methodology – and the methodology of her book — on full display. Instead of actually dealing with the objection, she finds a liberal link she can use to link us to her conspiracy. As everybody knows a conservative academic’s lot in universities like Yale, Harvard and Stanford – not to mention Emory where Harvey Klehr is a professor – is embattled. But West does not even bother to characterize the actual views of the academics Radosh cites. For her, their mere association with institutions on which she can pin a label is sufficient to impugn their views and damn them as part of a liberal conspiracy against her. And that is the problem with her book. To believe it you’d have to believe that Churchill, Eisenhower, and the American General Staff were all Soviet agents or dupes, along with every conservative historian critical of West’s conclusions.

I did say that “Diana West should not have written this book,” but that was not because I wanted to suppress her views (I’ve actually given them more publicity than anyone) but because her book is an embarrassment to her and to every conservative misled by it. That was also the reason I removed Frontpage’s endorsement of her book (I did not suppress the Frontpage review as she falsely claims, but allowed it to appear elsewhere). She has now published an eBook called The Rebuttal with that quote on the cover and all her personal attacks on Radosh and me inside. The subtitle is this: “Defending American Betrayal From The Book Burners.” Book burners. And she still has the gall to call us calumniators.

In closing let me clarify something that seems generally misunderstood. There are a lot of facts in West’s book with which neither Radosh nor I have any quarrel. These pertain to the large numbers of Soviet sympathizers, and significant numbers of Soviet agents in Washington and Hollywood that West writes about. Our quarrel is with the unwarranted conclusion she draws from this, which is that American policy in World War II was run by the Kremlin. As Samuel Johnson once said of another writer’s work, what is true in Diana West’s American Betrayal is not original and what is original is not true.

Postscript: And BTW, West’s “rebuttals” are not rebuttals. Despite a Yale education, she doesn’t seem to know the meaning of the word. Here is one typical self-refuting example from her new book:

Radosh:

She argues that during the New Deal the United States was an occupied power, its government controlled by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and subverted it. (Emphasis added.)

3) FALSE: The phrase “the United States was an occupied power” does not appear in American Betrayal. This connotes a state of military occupation that is not under consideration.

FACT: I argue at length that the strategic placement of hundreds of agents of Stalin’s influence inside the US government and other institutions amounted to a “de facto occupation” (p. 114). Later (p. 193), I write: “The vast and deep extent of Communist penetration, heretofore denied, had in fact reached a tipping point to become a de facto Communist occupation of the American center of power.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    One distinguishing mark of the far, far Right, is their inability to distinguish between anyone to their left. This is fringe group paranoia and I dealt with it here, as one of many examples. See http://clarespark.com/2013/07/31/the-nefarious-cultural-marxists/. “The Nefarious Cultural Marxists.”

    • Jillian Becker

      Who are you talking about, Clare Spark? Horowitz, West, or Bostom? Or all of them?

      • bluffcreek1967

        I’m not even sure she knows. Clare likes to write convoluted, high-falutin, and pseudo-intellectual articles that are difficult to make sense of. I think she’s trying to show us how smart she is, but she should probably stick to writing in terms most of us can understand.

        Having great ideas but not being able to communicate them in ways that people can comprehend renders one’s writing efforts worthless. For more, see William Zinsser’s book, ‘On Writing Well,’ especially chapters two and three on simplicity and clutter.

    • emptorpreempted

      Good essay about those who make the Frankfurt School out into some kind of devil — an idea with truly ugly associations. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who uses the phrase “cultural Marxism” unless to mock it is an idiot.

    • Jillian Becker

      Who are you talking about, Clare Spark? Horowitz, West, Bostom, or all of them?

    • Dobermite

      Clare,

      I could be wrong, but I get the sense that you are just uncomfortable with the fact that many (all?) of the Frankfurt School alums were Jewish, thus you are looking for a way to dismiss it as much ado about nothing.

      Granted some anti-semites can and have used the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism for nefarious purposes, but that doesn’t mean the plot was not real and its effects not devastating on western civilization, no more than the atrocities of the Bolshevik revolution were not real just because some anti-semites espouse a distinctly anti-semitic narrative.

      Look, when Willi Munzenberg said; “We will make the west so corrupt that it stinks”, he wasn’t just whistling dixie, and when Gramsci talked about “the long march through the institutions”, there’s more than enough evidence to suggest that the Cultural Marxists took him dead serious.

      Again I can understand how this might make some people uncomfortable, particularly if one is Jewish and I am sensitive to that, but that doesn’t mean the Cultural-Sexual revolution didn’t happen and that doesn’t mean Cultural Marxists did not play a big role, particularly Marcuse.

    • gawxxx

      please go back to the kitchen dinner is on fire and the baby needs changing ! , what a fool

  • Andrew Bostom

    Horowitz:

    Diana’s meticulous rebuttal part 1–parts 2 and 3 to follow–will
    forever stand in stark contrast to your empty-headed, mendacious
    fulminations that simply re-package the same deliberate
    misrepresentations you’ve belched forth before.

    As for your claim about Hopkins, in addition to being another
    misrepresentation of her work (after all Edward Mark DID label Hopkins
    agent 19 and NEVER recanted publicly, contra Radosh–see part 2 of West’s
    rebuttal)—Col. Ivan D. Yeaton (1895-1979), a real patriot, not some
    sunshine patriot, not so-ex-Commie, raging hack like yourself— the
    preeminent G-2 specialist on Communism during the WWII and early Cold
    War eras, who had the bad fortune to work with Hopkins directly, in your
    true motherland, the Stalinist era Soviet Union–called Hopkins
    perfidious, indeed traitorous because of Hopkins’ pro-Soviet activities
    at the expense of US interest and security needs.
    But I have a question for you: Did you have anything to do with CIA
    analyst Clare Lopez–another true patriot unlike you– being summarily
    fired from the Gatestone Institute for mentioning Diana West’s book
    favorably? Did you communicate your “displeasure” with Nina Rosenwald or
    anyone else on the Gatestone Board, which led to CLare’s firing?

    • Jsjk

      So Col. Ivan Yeaton thought Hopkins was “perfidious” and acted like a traitor. Unfortunately that is not evidence that Hopkins was a Soviet agent. (I think some could say that Obama’s policies consistently favor the Muslim Brotherhood, but that does not mean that Obama is a member of the Brotherhood). So, we’re back to square one.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Valid point about Yeaton but it is quite possible that Obama IS a member of the Muslim brotherhood. I strongly suspect that he is.

      • Andrew Bostom
        • ziggy zoggy

          Traitorous behavior does not make somebody a Soviet spy.

          You Westrolls always use pettifoggery to avoid addressing West’s whacko conclusion. The Soviets did not control U.S. war policy in WWII.

          • monostor

            What you use to prove the “au contraire” apart from personal attacks? None of you who attack DW &Co came up with anything to prove her wrong. Please list documentation, bibliography and 944 end-notes different from hers. Then we can start to have a proper discussion not a baseless bullying. Your MO is no different than that she unearthed in her book as being the usual game of the left: kill the messenger! The truth always hurts. She dared to do something that the club of elitist experts on history were afraid to do: to finally reveal that totalitarianism begets more totalitarianism.

          • truebearing

            Implying that David Horowitz, or anyone who agrees with him, is still on “the Left” is dishonest to the core, and I suspect driven by the thinking of a rigid ideologue, not someone interested in a genuine debate or freedom of expression.
            Are you arguing that West is infallible?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Just read her idiotic rebuttal. She describes a de facto soviet occupation of Washington.

            Not that Westroll geeektards like you care about facts. Conspiracy theories and prescription meds seem to be your thing.

          • Roy_Cam

            Not directly. They simply manipulated successfully to achieve as much almost as if they had had direct control.

            You obviously have not read the book.

          • thatsitivehadenough

            Well, they certainly got us into that war with Japan to take the heat off them so they wouldn’t be at war on two fronts, E & W.

        • bobguzzardi

          Thanks good information.

        • bobguzzardi

          thanks useful information

      • Roy_Cam

        Hopkins talk, walked, etc like the proverbial duck. Who cares how official the evil one’s membership is? The actions and the words did quite enough.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Andrew Bostom, you Westrolls are worse than Paulbots. Whenever a web author criticizes the factual errors and laughably false conclusion of West’s book, you spam their sites with ad hominem attacks and paranoid conspiracy theories. Now you want to want to know if Horowitz conspired to have somebody fired in some sort of commie pogrom against West and all of her readers. You need to take of your tinfoil hat. It’s baked your brain like a potato.

      Edward Mark’s statement has been refuted and Radosh made no errors in his review. (I checked.) Horowitz and Radosh both agree with Col. Yeaton that Hopkins was a destructive commie sympathizer, so there is no point in bringing up the subject other than sophistry.

      Are you capable of understanding how ridiculous West’s conclusion was? How conspiratorial? how paranoid? That the Soviets controlled U.S. (and apparently British) policy during WWII and for some time afterwards? Who cares if West is a patriot? Her book belongs in the fantasy section of any bookstore.

      • david horowitz

        Thank you Ziggy Zoggy. I haven’t the foggiest idea who this Lopez woman is, I haven’t communicated with Nina Rosenwald in six months, I am not familiar with Gatestone, and I am not the aggressor in all this. The victim lady is. She attacked me as a totalitarian for removing a review that made at seem as though Frontpage was endorsing a preposterous book. Then she organized a kook army of which Bostom is a prime member to attack me as a closet communist. She is incapable of rebutting any of the criticisms made of her book first of all because the criticisms are sound, secondly because they are over her head, and thirdly because she has invested all her energy in concocting a conspiracy theory to explain her critics instead of attempting to answer them.

        • ziggy zoggy

          No problem David. I read all the articles on the subject here and I read West’s rebuttals on Breitbart (a site I like, but nothing is perfect.) You and Radosh are right and she’s wrong. Instead of debating the reviews and articles on this site she went on a rampage and sent a “kook army” of trolls to spam this site. I suspect some of them do it pro bono but a troll is troll.

          When I read her conclusion that the Soviets controlled U.S. war policy in WWII I laughed, but some people believe what they want to believe.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            What a pompous-assed hypocrite you are to talk about posters working “pro bono” for West to register their views and then out of the other side of your mouth profess to be someone who disbelieves in conspiracies. Your Keith Olbermann imitation is most unbecoming.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Pompous -assed hypocrite? Compared to you? I think you need to learn the definition of conspiracy, by the way.

            Are you claiming West hasn’t asked trolls to come here, or that any fanatic who does it on his own isn’t doing it pro bono?

            Stop sitting on your brain. It’s cutting off the blood flow.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            You’re the one pushing a conspiracy that West is organizing all of us to post and that none of us can be doing so just because that’s our own independent conviction on the matter. Which renders your entire portrait of yourself as the reasonable minded person who doesn’t believe in conspiracies to be the fraud that it is.

          • ziggy zoggy

            That’s exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Work on your reading comprehension, nutbar

        • Dobermite

          “Then she (Diana West) organized a kook army of which Bostom is a prime member to attack me as a closet communist.”

          David, who is espousing the conspiracy theories now?

          So now those of us who are appalled by the Alinskyite behavior of you and Radosh in this whole sordid affair, and who have had the temerity to say so, are part of a “kook army” taking its marching orders from Miss West?

          It can’t possibly be that your behavior, and even more so Radosh (though sadly you are gaining ground on Radosh), has been so beneath contempt as to draw this reaction from a great many conservatives, many of whom (myself included) admired you before you foolishly decided to release the hounds of hell on this woman?

          Look in the mirror, David, this is not organized as you suspect. Its a rebuke from conservatives you yourself have invited and continue to egg on till this day.

          Lastly, I warned you that this would happen. I told you at the outset that you have joined Radosh in a fools endeavor and you should abandon this nonsense post haste, otherwise there is a real threat that you can damage your good name and the years of good will you have built up on the right. I knew this, instinctively, because I have been in the conservative movement long enough to know how the grassroots would respond to the public flogging of this woman, and frankly you should have known it too.

          Now I ask you, would I have taken the time to encourage you to wise up, choose a different path, abandon the Alinskyite nonsense and debate this woman in good faith, if I did not like you to begin with, if I were part of some “kook army” that was out to get you?

          Of course not, quite the contrary, I would have secretly wished you would double down on these attacks and completely alienate a great many conservatives, sadly as you have chosen to do out of stubbornness or hubris or both, but spare me the “kook army” stuff, its not a conspiracy, you have done this to yourself.

        • Dobermite

          David, what evidence do you have that Diana West organized a “kook army” against you?

          Who is being paranoid now?

          Who is the conspiracy theorist now?

          Has it occurred to you that these rebukes might be sincere and heartfelt, a natrual reaction to Radosh’s and your own behavior and the Alinskyite tactics that were deployed against this woman (and BTW I tried to warn you that this would be the reaction), and that its not just a bunch of lemmings taking their marching orders from Diana West?

          • ziggy zoggy

            I find it hard to believe that so many people choose to troll websites they never read just to praise a relatively unknown author like West.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            For your information, I’ve been reading Front Page for more than 10 years and have always appreciated it until now. This issue cuts to my sense of fair play in terms of what conservatives should be doing to demonstrate that we are *not* like the leftists David spent years railing about who have poisoned academic discourse. But when David and Radosh then turn around and adopt tactics straight out of the handbook of the Leftists they denounce and do not permit a free and fair-minded discussion of this book that under ordinary circumstances should just be a reasonable discussion where the issue is one of degree over what the deeper ramifications of Soviet espionage and Soviet influence in goverment was in the FDR era, then David makes a mockery of all the things I once admired about him and int he process damages the conservative movement a lot more than he says Diana West does.

          • truebearing

            So, your position is that everyone should march lock-step with what any self-appointed expert writes just to maintain solidarity within “the conservative movement?” Who is sounding like a leftist now?
            Since you are using the tactics of the Left, will you now please single yourself out for an Alinsky Award?
            Have you considered a well reasoned polemic, replete with facts and logic, to refute Radosh and Horowitz? Your one-source fanaticism seems a bit imbalanced. You know, there are many historians and many perspectives on history. You aren’t limited to one….at least not by choice.

          • TienBing

            I agree we should take Mr. Rodash’s opinion with a big grain of salt.

          • truebearing

            And yours and mine, too.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Uh, no my position is that whatever areas separate the West position from the Radosh position on the extent of the ramifications of Soviet espionage in the FDR era are ones that should be discussed reasonably and with respect in keeping with the traditions David said he stood for with regards to academic freedom and the exchange of ideas. It is David and Radosh who are not in favor of diversity of thought within the movement, and it is *they* who want to limit us to one choice only on this issue. That’s the point you keep missing, and in the process you’re really making yourself look foolish.

          • truebearing

            I’m not missing the point you insist on hammering. I haven’t taken a position in the debate, other than to point out some rather foolish and hypocritical comments coming from the frothing West faction. Your inability to read with full comprehension is hardly my fault. Talk about missing points.
            What amuses me the most about this flap is the histrionics over the impending collapse of the conservative movement because David Horowitz retracted a book review. If the movement is that frail, maybe it should expire. BTW, I hear ChickenLittle is telling everyone the collapse is imminent.

          • Dobermite

            I have been reading this site and occasionally posting on it since its inception, and I am familiar with many of these screen names from here and various other conservative websites, so your conspiracy theory and paranoia is unwarranted in my view, and its particularly comical coming from one who easily accuses others of paranoia and a conspiratorial mindset.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Right, because all the people frothing over West here except you usually post under different screen names. Talk about paranoia. No wonder you believe the Soviets controlled U.S.WWII policy. Who told you to troll this story? The voices in your head?

          • Dobermite

            Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

            Who said anything about different names?

            I said I recognize many of these (same) screen names from FP and other conservative websites (Townhall etc.), and these people have been posting here and elsewhere for quite some time, co cam down and learn how to read.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Bull$hit. I’ve read these idiotic comments and the identical ones on the other West threads and most of the names are unfamiliar. And “many” is not a synonym for “all.”

            But I guess I’m just a Russian commie who can’t read English because the Soviets CONTROLLED U.S. Policy in WWII.

          • Dobermite

            Dude, you sound like a raving lunatic and if you can’t learn how to have a civil discussion, then go find some other house to haunt, I’m done with you.

            PS. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong?

            You misread and mischaracterized what I said, I corrected you and pointed out your mistake, but instead of admitting it, you launch into another tirade? Take a valium.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Why can’t you just admit you’re a clueless moron who debates like an eight year old. Pettifoggery is a fallacious argumentation tactic. Either many of the screen names you mentioned are new names or you are lying. The only Westroll who comments on other articles here is Texas Patriot.

            I guess that makes you a liar. Now you’re qualified to write a book about conspiracies! Like the conspiracy to hide your brain up your @$$.

          • Dobermite

            Off your meds again, huh?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Off topic again, huh? I notice this West thread is the ONLY one you comment on.

            Sorry about what the commies did to your brain. Just strain and push real hard. When you hear the plop you can flush your problems away. You aren’t using the little lump anyway.

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            Try looking into these unfamiliar names – Barack H. Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Obama Soebarkah and Harrison J. Bounel. These are all the names used by this Commander in Chief and “ziggy zoggy” would think those that expose this Fraud in Chief are operating in conspiracy mode. It isn’t a damn conspiracy, it is a lame stream media and a cowardly Congress that will not investigate. “Conspiracies” only work when a media becomes “state run” and when Congress gives a pass to fraud and criminal activity.

          • ziggy zoggy

            What the heII does President Obunghole have to do with any of this?

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            No one complained about Diana West when she made the announcement that Barack H. Obama has committed the “biggest fraud ever committed against the United States” but you seem to give a crap about David Horowitz’s complaints against her. I would say that Obama’s fraud and criminal behavior would take precedent over something as inconsequential as this Horowitz complaint.

          • ziggy zoggy

            It does but it is not the subject of this thread.

          • Memory Man

            Take your meds for goodness sake. You’re embarrassing yourself.

          • gawxxx

            a little over the edge ! , ech ziggy !

          • ziggy zoggy

            If it goes over the toilet seat edge you can wipe with West’s book. It’s in the bargain bin so it costs less than toilet paper. Ech, geexxx!

          • gfmucci

            Oh, so only the “best known” author has the facts? Hardly, in this case.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Straw man attempt denied.

          • isntlam

            LOL! What a pathetic reply, zz. Like Dobermite, I’m here to defend Diana West from scurrilous charges. In no way is FPM’s treatment of her acceptable.

          • ziggy zoggy

            LOL! What a pathetic reply, isntglam. Why try to refute what I wrote when you can just make an accusation? I’m surprised you didn’t accuse me of being a liberal commie. Maybe I’m agent 19?

            Guess you’ll just have to accept West’s fair treatment, since there isn’t a damned thing you can do about it. Do you have a rush on that guy, or something?

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            I believe Horowitz don’t believe that someone who the American people voted for TWICE can be so sinister as to use fraudulent documents to attain the highest and most powerful office in the land. Shame on David with a background that he once had. David loves exposing the radicals that surround Barack H. Obama (Barry Soetore, etc) and we were all blessed by the work at Frontpage. BUT, they ignore the biggest scandal in the history of our country. At least Diana West was willing to look at the evidence, Horowitz is scared to death to go that far. I think he fears the ramafications of such a scandal and wants to keep his mouth and pen silent. If that is so, shame on him!

        • isntlam

          “I haven’t the foggiest idea who this Lopez woman is,”
          “I am not familiar with Gatestone”

          Next you’ll be telling us you don’t know who John Bolton is.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Isntglam, isn’t that the crappy singer? You sound like a big fan. Won’t that West guy be jealous?

          • isntlam

            What is a piggy doggy?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Issolame,

            it’s not funny. That’s for sure. Just play your Justin Beiber videos and mutter about Horowitz and his commie conspiracies.

          • isntlam

            Blah, blah, blah…

        • Martel

          Claiming to not know who someone is in an attempt to imply they are irrelevant. I feel like I am in highschool again. This is pathetic.

          If there was anything “kooky” about West her book, you could have pointed it out, but you failed to do so.

        • Jed West

          Here the cranky Horowitz lashes out in multiple directions and confuses his adversaries and mixes up the events swirling around him. I defy anyone to make sense of the ravings he has penned above. That said, I challenge Horowitz, if he indeed does not have the “foggiest idea who this Lopez woman is” to publicly call his friend Nina Rosenwald to reinstate Clare Lopez who was fired from her job for having a positive opinion about American Betrayal. Certainly, Mr. Horowitz would not want someone to lose her job for freely expressing opinion. First Amendment and all that, you know. Clare Lopez, by the way, is a distinguished political scientist, author, veteran of the CIA and member of Frank Gafney’s Team B, to list just a few of impressive accomplishments. See her bio which is still availavle at Gatestone http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/biography/Clare+M.+Lopez

          • Roy_Cam

            Well said. Well said. Well said. Certainly this book cannot be so wrong that using it to make a point should get you fired.

            Yet in that one act, we see just how far “groupthink”, that is, the defense of an orthodoxy by its true believers, will go.

            There is abject fear here.

        • Nick

          How much energy did you invest in concocting your own conspiracy theory?

          All your energy?

          Not much?

          Or did it come naturally?

          Organised a kook army – really, take a look at yourself for a moment!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

          http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/author/David+Horowitz Would you mind explaining how a FPM piece of yours could appear at Gatestone and how you could be listed among the “authors” at their site and yet, you are “not familiar with them?” Are you in the habit of letting your work at FPM be reproduced at sites you are “not familiar with”? Maybe that’s just an honest mistake on your part, but that also offers a reminder as to why you need to get out of your glass house before you start throwing stones at another person’s regard for methodology.

        • Buck

          You’re a blatant hypocrite and a fantasist to boot.

          Hint: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

        • thatsitivehadenough

          How is she wrong? “her misrepresentation of the pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins as an actual
          Soviet spy, her preposterous claim that Lend-lease and D-Day were Soviet
          plots or that the decision shared by Winston Churchill to suppress the
          facts of the Katyn massacre was a Kremlin design.” Although I haven’t yet found anything on D-Day being a Soviet ‘plot,’ I have seen where Soviet spies in the US government did send messages to the Soviets about ANVIL, Lend Lease was run by Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent, and the Katyn coverup was the result of Soviet influence inside the WH. See” The Venona Secrets.”

        • Guest

          Game over. DH is thanking Ziggy!

      • Andrew Bostom

        Look you moron Radosh lied as did the rest of his cabal about Mark’s alleged “public statement”.recanting of his 1998 analysis. Also did you know that the allegedly “erudite” Haynes and Klehr can’t even place Duggan at Trident–Mark did the best analysis and concluded Hopkins was present–despite their “proof” from a tiny fraction of the KGB archive that Duggan had a designation at one circumscribed point in time as “agent 19″. You need both pieces of evidence Sherlock and they ain’t got ‘em. But we have reams of evidence from patriotic Americans, esp. military personnel, who had direct contact with Hopkins & they had no doubts about his Soviet abetting perfidy via. There is also proof he wanted to deliver the heroic defector Victor Kravchenko back to Stalin so he could executed

        • ziggy zoggy

          Andrew, saying somebody is a liar without proof is a fallacious argument. Mark’s conclusion wasn’t based on proof, either. Evidence is not proof, especially when you cherry pick it to support a pre-formed conclusion, like West did. Abetting perfidy did not make Hopkins a Soviet agent. Nowhere in Soviet records is the claim that he was. If West is such a great scholar she would have found them if they existed. Unless you are implying that she is a sloppy scholar?

          Be careful who you call a moron. It takes a special kind of moron to believe West’s tin hat conclusion. The special Ed kind.

          • gawxxx

            let the book sink or swim on it’s own and grow up !

          • ziggy zoggy

            Sounds like good advice for yourself. Too bad it already sank to the bargain bin and return to publisher pile. LOL!

      • Brett Woods

        Ziggy Zoggy wrote:”Whenever a web author criticizes the factual errors and laughably false conclusion of West’s book, you spam their sites with ad hominem attacks and paranoid conspiracy theories.”
        The most laughably false conclusion and paranoid conspiracy theory so far, is Radosh theory that McCarthy was somehow “bad” for conservatives, as implied in his desperate hatchet-job “McCarthy on Steroids”.
        Truth is, that the real hardworking american democrats LOVED McCarthy. It was only the liars, name-callers and back-stabbing media-traitors who hated him. If the US is going to survive, we will need 1000s of McCarthys on Steroids!

        “McCarthy Steals the Democrat Vote”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEL4-SKSjIc

        • ziggy zoggy

          What does any of that have to do with West’s whacko book? And how is it nuttier than her conclusion?

          “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” was more historically accurate.

          • Brett Woods

            Just to remind you that the premise of Radosh “take-down” is false…

            Could you please stop spamming the thread with insults?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Could you please explain how claiming the Soviets controlled U.S. WWII policy was anything but whacko? The truth is out there, right?

        • bobguzzardi

          very interesting. Sen. McCarthy wins re-election in Wisconsin. He seems to have dramatically increased his appeal to Democrats because of his anti-communism. I did not know this.

      • TienBing

        Why the insults? If those who side with, or are at least sympathetic to West’s position are Westrolls doesn’t that make you a Rodashsuck, or a Horowitzass? Denouncing ad hominem attacks by indulging in ad hominem attacks and name calling is…hypocritical?
        The word here is “control”. At what point does influence morph into control?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Are you trying to claim that you Westrolls aren’t trolls?

          • TienBing

            So which are you – a Rodashsuck or a Horowitzass?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Dude, you need to work on your comedy routine. Comedy is supposed to be FUNNY. You know. Like claiming Harry Hopkins was a Soviet Agent with zero proof and that the Soviets masterminded U.S. policy in WWII. Now, that’s funny.

          • TienBing

            I have no idea whether or not Hopkins was a paid Soviet agent or not. I never claimed he was. Supposition pro or con on the issue is just that – supposition. An argument can be made either way.

            However my unappreciated attempt at humor was in response to your juvenile name calling at posters who question the infallibility of Rodash and Horowitz, or attempt to defend West.

            Try to stay focused

          • ziggy zoggy

            TeaBag,

            more Westroll pettifoggery. And you tell me to focus? Typical. West claims that Hopkins is a proved Soviet agent – agent 19. I claim there is no proof. Your comment makes no sense. And the infallibility of Radosh and Horowitz is a straw man – especially considering how fanatically you Westrolls claim defend her paranoid claims.

            You have FINALLY admitted that there is no proof that Hopkins was a Soviet agent at all, much less agent 19. Congratulatipns. You are the first Westroll to do so, whether you meant to contradict your heroine or not. Now free yourself and admit the Soviets did not control U.S. policy in WWII and beyond. Embrace sanity.

          • TienBing

            You are insane.

          • ziggy zoggy

            TienyBalls, brilliant non-answer. I’m not the one who thinks the Soviets controlled U.S. policy. A policy that caused the Soviets to have the highest casualty figure in WWII – by far. Stalin had no problem killing his fellow Russians but he wanted as many soldiers as possible for the aftermath of WWII. He needed them to scurry in into as much of Europe as possible after America and Britain won the war. The idiot actually thought he could make it to Paris and hold it. I guess he forgot to convince America to let him do that. Seeing as how he controlled our war policy and all.

            Only a real lunatic could believe West’s nonsense.

          • TienBing

            YOU claim the is no proof. Well that settles it.

            In response to one of your insane rants that is still being moderated:

            At no time and in no post did I claim that the Kremlin controlled US policy. I do believe that communists and communist sympathizers did exert heavy influence on FDR throughout the ’30s and during WWII. The extent of that influence is a matter of debate. There is no doubt as one looks at the US today, their influence on our country was/is significant.

            One sign of paranoia is over reaction and hostility to foreign ideas, strangers, and the unknown. You should seek professional help. There are medications available to stabilize your condition.

            Just to address one of your canards: The Soviets and NAZIs went to war before the US officially got into it. No one except Stalin and his inept generals (survivors of Stalin’s purges of the military in the ’30s), used Russians as cannon fodder. We did not need Stalin or the Russians – they needed the US. At the time of US intervention the NAZI advance stretched from Leningrad to Odessa. The Russians were losing territory, men, and equipment in large chunks. If the Americans and the British had not invaded North Africa and otherwise caused Hitler to hedge his bets on troop deployment and logistical support, things on the Eastern Front may have gone much worse for the Soviets.

            Uncle Joe begged the US and England to open more fronts to take the pressure off Russia. The allies invaded Italy; eventually France. Then there was the 24/7 bombing of Germany…

            At the same time the US sent millions of tons of food, supplies and equipment to Russia at great cost to the US in money, lives and ships. (See the Murmunsk and Archangle runs) The US also sent Russia scientific information and technology.

            The canards concerning when Russia attempted to invade Japan, and when and why US aid to Russia was suspended can be dealt with another time.

            Rather than project your family habits on others and sneer at anyone else’s brain size perhaps you should exercise your own brain more. It would no doubt improve it’s cognitive function – and maybe improve your mood and social skills.

    • david horowitz

      “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” Matthew 7:6

      • ziggy zoggy

        Thanks for the sermon.

      • gawxxx

        I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror mr. horowitz before quoting any scripture ! even fools can read the bible .

      • TienBing

        You are going too far with your self portrayal as a victim and martyr. There is nothing sacred about sneers. Spite is no pearl.

        • truebearing

          You’re going too far with your portrayal of West as a victim.

          • TienBing

            You are demonstrating the falsity of your moniker.

    • Kenneth Sikorski

      I’ll add with a quote from Joseph Welch (whose statement btw Diana adds the proper context to in her book for those who actually read it) and pose it as timely and appropriate question to David Horowitz: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

    • bobguzzardi

      I have read of Claire Lopez’s firing from Gladstone Institute after she wrote an article in which she cited with approval Diana West’s book. For many reasons,this was very upsetting to many. Ruth King provides some details. I, too, know Nina Rosenwald and have high regard for her and what she does.

      For more see Ruth King http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2013/09/07/update-clare-lopez-see-note-please/ and Gates of Vienna http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/09/the-totalitarian-impulse/

    • bobguzzardi

      I
      have read of Claire Lopez’s firing from Gladstone Institute after she wrote an
      article in which she cited with approval Diana West’s book. For many reasons,
      this was very upsetting to many. I, too, know
      Nina Rosenwald and have high regard for her and what she does.

      For more see Ruth
      King http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2013/09/07/update-clare-lopez-see-note-please/ and Gates of
      Vienna http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/09/the-totalitarian-impulse/

  • Charles Martel

    While I would not agree that Mr. Horowitz is a far left liberal or a communist, his leanings gathered from years of viewing his site and reading his work shows he is not a conservative at least not a traditional conservative, still, I do enjoy his perspective and admire his courage for straight talk especially on college campuses. I would describe him more as a libertarian or a neo-con.

    As far as his criticism of Ms. West,I think it probably stems from the oppression he and his family probably suffered when they were communists and McCarthy was actively pursuing communists.

    • ziggy zoggy

      It may also stem from the fact that the conclusion of West’s book was false, paranoid and STUPID.

      • gawxxx

        and you are rational ! , ech zig !

    • david horowitz

      My criticism of Ms. West stems from a passion for accuracy and integrity, neither of which she has as a writer. I’m glad you enjoy my perspective which is that of a liberty-leaning conservative.

      • Texas Patriot

        Wake up, David. He didn’t describe you as a “liberty leaning conservative”. He accurately stated that you are “not a traditional conservative”. Personally I don’t think you are a conservative in any sense of the word.

        Leopards don’t change their spots, and you haven’t changed yours. When you feel threatened, it is plain for all to see that you revert to the Bolshevist and Stalinist tactics of your youth, and that makes you an enemy of the True, the Beautiful, and the Good, which in turn makes you an enemy of the American Dream and everything that Authentic American Conservatives believe in and fight for.

        Personally I think this entire episode with Diana West and Ronald Radosh has been a positive learning experience for those of us who still believe in the All-American Conservatism of Barry Goldwater. We need to know who we can count on and who we can’t. Thanks for helping us to get to know you a little bit better.

      • Martel

        None of the reviews you published after the “take-down” showed even a glimmer of this passion for accuracy and integrity. Do you really believe we cannot see the complete failure of your cronies to stick to the facts in discussing her book?
        If she had no integrity, I’m sure you would have found legitimate flaws in her book, you didn’t, which is obvious to anyone reading those “reviews”. This whole experience has been quite a ride, I used to promote the Horowitz foundation endlessly, but no more.

        PS: Your use of leftist stereotypes against another conservatives is quite disturbing, especially as you understand the psychology of dirty politics and the malicious effects a successful stereotype has on a political movement.

    • jlevyellow

      I am flabbergasted at the intellectual level of the disagreement between the Horowitz and West camps. We live in a world where our appliances and our military devices gain their magical acumen and accuracy through “fuzzy logic” an extension of statistics. Is a person tall, somewhat tall, a little short, very short? Part of the answer depends on the context. Obama is tall among world leaders. He is not tall when compared to the Knicks squad.

      Regarding Harry Hopkins, was he a Communist?, a Communist agent?, sympathetic to their cause?, or merely someone convinced of Communist goals? It may be too hard to determine to which category he belonged, because the categories are fuzzy and wash into one another. Because history cannot be re-run multiple times per second, as can fuzzy logic circuitry, historians work in the world at a definite disadvantage. They can only pray for accuracy once. This is a truism, so the arguments here regarding Hopkins’ affiliations seem silly to an outsider.

      The real question is not whether someone is ‘x” or “not x” for the play we are watching, but how do we protect ourselves from the deleterious effects of ‘x’? If someone was not ‘x’, then protection had an expense, but performed no function. If someone was ‘x’, then the expense incurred was justified and prevented destruction well above the expense of the protection. We must simply agglomerate all the categories from ‘card-carrying Communist’ to ‘dupe’ in deciding what measures should have been taken in combating the effects of Hopkins.

      Characterizations that try to pigeonhole the actors here are not to the point. Indeed, such discussions cloud the argument we must be having to make use of history to save the future. As with Obama, the only way to understand the matter of Hopkins is to turn off the volume and then categorize behavior and behavior only. It is not difficult, but also not a usual manner of analysis, since blogs are composed of words and their subtle traps. We need better tools. The elimination of words that represent abstract concepts like Communist, Liberal, Conservative, and ‘true Conservative’ is a good place to start.

      “Did Hopkins sanction the transfer of atomic technology to Russia? More protection!

      Did Hopkins censor FDR’s communications? More protection!

      Did Hopkins remove anti-Communists from positions of influence? More protection!

      Try the same exercise with Obama! No categories, just behaviors and the necessary responses for protection.

      • ziggy zoggy

        The object of a historical text is to record historical facts, not to pontificate about a fuzzy X.

        Necessary responses and PROACTION are for policy makers, not historians.

        Your comment is a perfect example of why West’s use of cherry picked and often false data to support her preconceived notions produced a lousy book.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    Tell me David. Why was the first paragraph of this NOT to be found in the duplicate version at Breitbart, in which you charge Diana West with calling you and Radosh “pro-communist”? Is that because if it *had* appeared there, you would have stood exposed as the shrill and shallow hypocrite you are when you talk out of one side of your mouth about how she is pushing crazy conspiracy theories and making things up, yet here you are telling an absolute falsehood because at no time does she *ever* say that about you and Radosh. To be sure, you are accused of wanting to stand by an “establishment” interpretation in which communist subversion can be acknowledged, but its overall impact minimized, but that isn’t the same thing and you know it. I guess Radosh’s dishonest way of evaluating a book (as he first did with Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History”) has rubbed off on you a good deal and it does you no credit whatsoever.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Eric Paddon, you Westrolls are factually challenged, to say the least. I read West’s rebuttal and she absolutely did accuse Horowitz and Radosh of being closet liberals and pro-communist. She accused them of aiding communism and so called liberalism.

      Tell me Eric, how irrational and conspiratorial is it to believe the Soviet Union controlled or even guided U.S. war policy in WWII?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        That’s two canned generic robot posts of yours, which is in keeping with the fact that Horowitz’s entire post (the full one here and the one he conveniently edited at Breitbart) is a generic piece of nonsense that doesn’t address any of the specifics of West’s rebuttal. He in fact chose to treat what was simply Part 1 of West’s rebuttal as the entire thing (and did not appraise readers here of that fact) to avoid dealing with the specifics.
        Show me the line where West refers to Horowitz and Radosh as “pro-communist”. Then we’ll see who the real conspiracy-monger is.

        • ziggy zoggy

          I’m not going to read West’s tedious rebuttals again. It was excruciating enough the first time. Read it yourself to find the particular line you refer to. She absolutely did accuse Horowitz and Radosh of serving the “liberal” and communist causes. Writing something you Westrolls don’t like isn’t a conspiracy. None of her pettifoggery refuted the fact that she made claims in her book without proof and that her conspiratorial conclusion sounded insane.

          I’m wasting my time of course. Trolls never admit the truth.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Thank you for revealing you are an intellectual coward of the first order. You won’t cite what West wrote, and you then go off and make idiotic comments about posters working “pro bono” for West, which shows us who the real believer in wacky conspiracy theories is, and it isn’t me.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Refusing to read West’s tedious rebuttals- which refuse to rebut the fact that her book’s conclusion is insane – isn’t intellectual cowardice, it’s a practical use of my time. Calling people liars is intellectual cowardice. As if I give a $&it which line she wrote the comment I read. Look for it yourself. Either you have poor reading comprehension or YOU are the liar.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Hmm, expecting others to do work for you beacuse you’re too lazy to do it yourself. How….liberal of you. :D

          • ziggy zoggy

            Project much?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            I suggest you hire some new writers, you are running out of crazed ad-libs. :)

          • ziggy zoggy

            I suggest you call the nurse to give you your meds and help with that rectal condition. Head up the @$$ disease can be fatal. Don’t you want some fresh air and better food, you conspiracy nut?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Let’s see David Horowitz’s #1 fan in this thread is a person whose idea of intelligent discourse is (1) pornographic metaphors (2) toilet metaphors (appropriate since he doesn’t give a s*** where the evil things West supposedly are to be found and hence he won’t go looking for them (3) questioning Diana West’s gender and (4) advocating a conspiracy of West supporters being sent out by West to post our comments even as he out of the other side of his mouth yammers about his disbelief in conspiracy theories.

            Yep, David, that’s your leading foot soldier in the army of the “sane”. And you can keep him!

          • Nick

            It is rather entertaining watching him bare his soul to the whole world though, you must admit. In a sick, there’s someone overtaking up ahead on a blind corner kind of way …

          • ziggy zoggy

            Was that free style prose or are the anti-psychotics kicking in? William Burroughs was more coherent. HeII, a rhesus monkey tripping on Peyote would be more coherent.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You’ve written thousands of words without once addressing your hero’s unfounded claims, sloppy scholarship and acutely paranoiac conclusion. No Russian/Soviet document has been found that lists Harry Hopkins as SOVIET agent 19, and not even the Birchers believe that the Kremlin controlled U.S. policy in WWII.

            It doesn’t matter if you’re one of the Westrolls she sicced on FPM or a true believing sycophantic free agent. You are all pettifogging the issue. Her book is factually challenged and its conclusion is deranged.

            Wipe you chin and take your meds. Paranoia will destroy ya.

      • TienBing

        Why is the theory that the Soviet Union and home grown communists controlled US policy in WWII irrational? Do you mean unbelievable?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Because the results of WWII. I mean bat $hit insane.

          • TienBing

            Review the results of WWII.

    • david horowitz

      The introductory paragraph was an afterthought. I had already sent the Breitbart in and I didn’t think it important enough to bother the Breitbart folks about including it. Evidently you do. You also like Bostom can’t read English, because she says exactly that about Radosh and me.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        Put another way, it was a piece of “ad homnenim” attack dog rhetoric. Meantime, let’s have an exact quote where the characterization of calling you pro-communist is, if you please. I might also note that your entire post comes off as a generic piece of nothing since it refuses to address the specifics of the rebuttal in detail nor does it bother to appraise readers of the fact that what has appeared at Breitbart so far is not the full rebuttal. For you to make assertions that she has not addressed all of Radosh’s charges before it’s appeared also doesn’t do your credibility any good either.

        • ziggy zoggy

          So tell me Paddon, do you believe the Soviets controlled U.S. policy for WWII? Everything else is just pettifoggery.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            SInce you believe posters who merely hold Horowitz and Radosh accountable to the standards they apply to West, are operating pro bono for West, you are the last person with any credbility to talk about “pettifoggery”.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You didn’t answer the question. None of you Westrolls fanatics ever do. Did they CONTROL it or not?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            You show me the quote where West said Horowitz and Radosh were pro-communist, and you will then earn the right to be taken seriously as far as your ability to have a discussion on the merits of the book’s argument is concerned. Since you say you won’t do so, and because you believe in conspiracy theories regarding the presence of posters who don’t share your most un-scholarly way of looking at things, you have not earned the right to be taken seriously as far as a discussion of the book’s thesis is concerned.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Play with yourself. If you can’t support your heroine’s conclusion, nothing you write is worth bothering with.

            And that isn’t a brain aneurism. It’s a hemorrhoid.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            I’m more than ready to have a serious discussion with a serious person. Keith Olbermann imitators who refuse to quote source material to back up their charges do not fall in that category.

          • ziggy zoggy

            And your brain just popped. Better get some toilet paper!

          • monostor

            How highly intellectual your comment is! Tell us please, why are you jumping into the discussion every time someone addresses David? Does he needs advocates? And you talk about DW “paying” her fans?

          • ziggy zoggy

            How highly irrelevant your question is! Tell us please, why are you trolling for that DW guy?

          • TienBing

            Believe?
            There is no doubt that communists and Soviet sympathizers influenced US policy. At what point do you believe that influence became control? Put another way where is the line between influence and control? Or why are you so adamant that there was no communist control?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Check a dictionary for the difference between influence and control, short bus. I guess those commies were brilliant to force the allies to use them as cannon fodder to wear down the Nazis so the D Day invasion would be successful. Ret@rd.

          • TienBing

            ROTFLMAO
            Apparently you don’t even understand the core issue of the disagreement. Keep up with the juvenile insults.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The only disagreement is that West doesn’t like the FPM review of her poorly conceived, poorly executed and fallacious book so she went on the attack and brought her trolls with her. Crawl back under your bridge, or commuter desk or whatever.

          • TienBing

            My disagreement was never with the the fact that Mr. Rodash didn’t agree with West, – it was with the petty nature of the review. There was no useful critique. There was no critique – merely bile and indignation that someone would dare to write anything so outside of prescribed dogma. That baffled me. When Mr. Horowitz joined in with the same type of invective I was even more surprised.
            I expected Mr. Horowitz to explain in some detail exactly where Ms West went wrong and give factual details – not quibbles over interpretations of ambiguous data. A good debate between researchers, or a correction by an expert is very educational. Instead his response is much like yours – no facts, merely insisting that his view is correct and anyone who disagrees or holds another opinion is a contemptible loon. To his credit, Mr. Horowitz didn’t resort to your level of childish name calling.
            Maybe you should wipe the spittle off your screen and pay attention to the arguments rather than lashing out.

          • ziggy zoggy

            TenPin, more Westroll bull$hit. You’re parroting that West guy’s fallacious argument. It is a fact that he started the vitriol and ad hominems against Radosh and Horowitz over a review he didn’t like. He did so before Horowitz ever bothered to write an article on the subject. No writer at FPM adheres to “prescribed dogma.” That is just West’s attempt to smear Radosh and Horowitz as ” liberals” (an inaccurate term for leftists.)

            For people who claim to be the only “real” conservatives you Westards sure use a lot of left-wing tactics. You sling calumny like a monkey slings $hit and the play the aggrieved victims. You ignore the entire purpose and conclusion of West’s book and pettifog irrelevant bits. And most of all, you project your shortcomings and lack of integrity on anybody who disagrees with your unhinged crap. You would fit right into groups like Moveon.org or CAIR.

          • Nick

            You don’t even realise that you just made their argument for them. Pretty funny really. I mean, you do realise that you are nothing but a figure of fun, right?

      • JustAGuest

        Mr. Horowitz, I read your initial praise of Diana West’s book, and I immediately purchased it. As I read it, I learned many things about America’s history and Soviet activity about which I was unaware; I happened to be simultaneously reading the “fiction” We the Living, and I was astounded at how well the two books worked together to give me a greater understanding of the intricacies of Soviet lies and deceptions. I teach American literature to high school juniors – all of which take American history simultaneously. Our students ARE being fed a diet of moral relatvity and pragmatics that is disturbing. I am the only teacher at my school – perhaps my district – who teaches The Crucible (the only REQUIRED text for the course) in the context of alternative attitudes toward HUAC. While some of what Ms. West states or includes is conjecture – something I’m sure your historian professor friends have a difficult time stomaching, I am perfectly capable of recognizing that when I encounter it, and it does not detract from the more eye-opening aspects of her piece. We are educated readers who can make those judgments. I read you every day; I’ve read your books; I think the work you are doing to defend our academic world are laudable; however, I think the way you handled the retraction of your “review” of Ms. West’s book could have been handled with a little more class. It’s not that bad.

      • Texas Patriot

        DH: “You also like Bostom can’t read English, because she says exactly that about Radosh and me.”

        I can read English, and I have read many requests by your readers on this board for you to provide them with an exact citation and an exact quotation of the actual language that Diana West allegedly used to call you “pro-Communist”. Why haven’t you provided that? And why are you now claiming that your readers “can’t read English”? Obviously they can read English, and plain English is exactly what they are asking you to produce. They have also asked you to produce exact citations and exact quotations to support your other claims about Ms. West’s book. Do you really imagine somewhere in your mind that no one will notice that you haven’t bothered to substantiate your charges against Ms. West with the actual citations and actual quotations from her book that you are referring to?

  • Texas Patriot

    Give it up, David. It’s time to face reality. You didn’t like the idea of comparing Communist infiltration in our government in the 1930s and 1940s with Islamic infiltration in our government today, so you tried to discredit Diana West and bully her into silence. What you didn’t realize is that she has the truth on her side.

    Unfortunately, in your panic to suppress her ideas, you recruited your old Communist buddy Ron Radosh and reverted to the same tactics of lies, personal attacks, and character assassination favored by the Bolsheviks and Stalinists that you say you have left behind.

    Well, it didn’t work. Instead, it backfired horribly and exposed you and Radosh for the frauds and charlatans you really are.

    And if you don’t know that, you should.

    • David Horowitz

      You, sir, are an ass. Check out the speech that got me banned from CPAC which draws exactly that parallel, and did so well before West.

    • Brett Woods

      In his hatchet-job “McCarthy on Steroids” Radosh conveniently forgot to mention, that the real hardworking american democrats LOVED McCarthy.

      It was of course only the liars, name-callers and back-stabbing media-traitors who hated him. If the US is going to survive, we will need 1000s of McCarthys on Steroids!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEL4-SKSjIc

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      Start devoting some time in helping the hundreds of true patriots who have been very busy attempting to expose the fraud committed by Barack H. Obama (or is it Barry Soetoro, or is it Harrison J. Bounel, or is it Barack Obama Soebarkah, or is it Barry Obama – first clue David!!). They need a platform. Do you know that Lt. Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in the 23 month long crimial investigation, has been briefing Congresspersons and other Washington DC VIPS over the past 3 weeks? Imagine that, most of the conservative media doesn’t have a clue as to how corrupt and criminal this Fraud in Chief is. Shame on you!

      • Texas Patriot

        I could not possibly be more disappointed in President Barack Obama. There has perhaps never been an American President to create such high expectations only to deliver such disastrous results. But IMO attacking BHO at this point is pretty much a waste of time. He’s a lame duck and on his way out.

        What is important at this point in American history is formulating a strategy for winning in 2016 and beginning to turn the nation around from fifty plus years of corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement from both of the major political parties. And that means cleaning house and getting rid of all the pseudo-conservatives, phony conservatives, Neo-Conservatives and all of the rest of the Leftist and Neo-Leftist riff-raff that has corrupted, folded, spindled, and mutilated the Grand Old Party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, D. Eisenhower, and Everett Dirkson into something that would have been almost unrecognizable in the days of the Late Great “Mr. Conservative”, Senator Barry Goldwater.

        If you want to know what the future of the American Conservative Renaissance looks like, take a look at Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative” from 1960 for starters. Some things don’t change, and plain talk, honesty, and common sense from All-American Conservatives is what America needs, and we need it now.

  • 11bravo

    Aright kids!! Let’s give it a rest!
    Dave, you have more pressing and important work to do. People will believe what they want. I personally think Diana has always fought the good fight in her large body of work – but I have not read this book. If pointing out some Ill informed conclusion on another authors work gets everyone’s panties in this big of a wad – JEEZ!!!
    YAAAAAWWWNING!! Let’s move on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    The worthlessness of the Horowitz “postscript” can be seen in its appalling selectivity where in the “3A” part not reproduced, West explains the meaning of her “de facto occupation” characterization and how it does not resemble that which is implied in the soundbite manner in which Horowitz chooses to present it.
    These are the kind of techniques I’m more used to seeing from the Maher-Olbermann school. Seeing them reproduced in a conservative forum is the thing that has offended me greatly since this controversy began. As I said, it’s not the matter of whether Hopkins was a spy or not that’s ultimately important, it’s the sense of fair play on a discussion where there should be some openness and not this shrill and shallow contest that was precipitated entirely by Radosh, and whose tone does not impress me. The insults of conservatives who have found value in West’s work is also what I find unimpressive. I guess we’re not supposed to be a “Big Tent” of ideas when it comes to debating these issues!

  • john

    David is Spot on , he did not slime any one while pointing out what he did , gave the author of the piece in question space to address the points brought up , and now here’s this cyber storm slime hurled at him , and still no point by point rational rebuttal of the disagreements he and Radosh point out in Wests book – Well done ” Fact Checkers ” —

    • TienBing

      The problem is twofold.
      First no irrefutable points or correct facts were offered in the original takedown/critique; only counter assertions and ridicule were offered.
      Second the manner and tone in which Rodash/Horowitz killed a positive review and substituted a harsh attack on Mrs. West and her scholarship – offering nothing but snark and petty academic quibbles to suggest that West is essentially a loon for advancing an explanation for the victory of communism over liberty in the US that differs from the Rodash/Horowitz drone.

  • Dobermite

    What has happened to my posting privileges?

    So far I have tried to post two thoughtful responses to various posts, completely devoid of anything that can even be mistaken for a TOS violation, and both came back awaiting approval. Very frustrating when you spend time constructing a thoughtful response and it immediately gets cast off into the abyss.

  • Larry Larkin

    Whilst I am not as au fait with the political/espionage side of things, I am much more so with the actual military side. And if some of the ridiculous things West seems to claim on military decisions are anything to go by, I can’t see why she can be taken seriously on the political/espionage side.

    • isntlam

      Of course you have no example to give…

      • Larry Larkin

        Her comments on the Italian Campaign, and the views supposedly avowed by Eisenhower are just plain wrong.
        Likewise her comments on the invasion of France.
        I am extremely well and widely read in those areas, and her stuff is just nonsense.

        • AlexanderGofen

          “plain wrong” just because you said so? Could you please briefly elaborate why the bulwark in Italy was bad? Why not supporting German resistance was bad? And why the licking of Stalin’s boot was good? http://www.resonoelusono.com/TrueHistoricFacts.htm

          • ziggy zoggy

            Plain wrong because D Day was successful and the generals who knew Italy would have failed were right. Eisenhower didn’t think the way she said he did. Your other accusations are too stupid to consider.

            What’s the point of refuting morons like you? You are trying to defend West’s tripe so YOU need to prove it isn’t tripe, you lack wit. Stop trying to avoid answering by casting accusations.

          • AlexanderGofen

            You are not worth of my reply given your ad hominem post. Nevertheless, notwithstanding your language, “D Day was successful” with a great deal of salt. It does not prove your point. A campaign from Italy’s bulwark could be much more successful, much more earlier, and prevent Stalin’s capture of the Eastern Europe.

          • ziggy zoggy

            And if pigs had wings they could fly. There is a reason the best tacticians and strategists the Allies had disagreed with your ridiculous battle plan. It was a logistical impossibility and advancing across occupied Italy, over the Alps and straight into fortified Germany was the worst plan possible. And by the way, Stalin wanted them to try that so the German forces on the Russian front would leave to repel the real threat – you ignoramus. No wonder you think West knows military strategy.

            Stalin was not a threat. He was an opportunist. Hitler would have conquered the world. The only reason Stalin was able to ooze out of Russia and occupy Eastern Europe is because America and Britain beat the German military in the West.

            West is a fool and so are her sycophants.

          • AlexanderGofen

            Italy was already liberated in 1944. Churchill and other generals naturally preferred to proceed from Italy, and rightfully so. Indeed, it would disrupt Stalin’s “Icebreaker” plan even more, so they did it as the D Day (more costly and later) to please Stalin also in this way.

            Stalin was the greatest threat the world ever knew. Stalin’s hell on the Earth lasted prior and after Hitler. Stalin and Hitler both started the war in 1939 as allies. However Stalin hoped later to hit Hitler’s back and come as the only “liberator” of entire Europe. His Icebreaker idea however happened to be messed. Stalin succeeded to become a liberator of only Eastern Europe – thanks to collaboration of the Allies licking his boots since 1933.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Good example. These Westrolls aren’t interested in facts, though. If they really did read her book they don’t need examples anyway.

  • Debra Burlingame

    Mr. Horowitz, the ferocity with which you have attacked Ms. West and her book continues to astonish me. You believe you are unerring and superior, yet resort to school yard name-calling and bullying. You have even insulted your own loyal readers as “kooks” for objecting to your treatment of her and her book. This is unhinged behavior which I believe has nothing do to with the quality of Ms. West’s book or her objection to your handling of it. If American Betrayal is so ludicrous (and I do not believe it is in the least), it will fail all alone. What on earth are you afraid of? If I were your friend, I would advise you to stop. You’ve lost perspective.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

      Thank you, Debra (and as a classmate of Todd Beamer of Flight #93, God bless you for your work), for getting to the real heart of the matter. It really goes beyond the scholarly merits or lack thereof in West’s book, which I’m sure under ordinary circumstances could be the occasion for some productive dialogue and discussion on the nature of the ramifications of Soviet espionage in the FDR era was, and are there lessons to draw from that for today’s world. But the utter dishonesty, arrogance and mean-spirtedness of Horowitz and Radosh, using rhetorical techniques that are so unlike anything one would expect to find in principled conservatives is what for someone like myself is the most disturbing thing about this.

      • david horowitz

        Again not a word addressed to the facts.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

          You’re engaging in auto-projection now, David. And that doesn’t become you either. Your post below about “organizing an army of fans” to suggest that none of us are saying what we are saying because of our own deeply felt principles and our *own* ability to study things four ourselves but that it’s all a conspiracy organized by her, really doesn’t help your credibility on this issue. If there’s anything you should be embarrassed by it’s running Radosh’s ridiculous review which was in the fine tradition of his bad review of “Blacklisted By History”.

          • truebearing

            Are you congenitally incapable of providing a factual polemic, or just unwilling due to fears that you will lose the debate?
            In all of your comments I have seen the same preponderance of posturing and opinion, but a paucity of fact, and history is all about facts, as I understand it.

        • monostor

          “Facts”? You, Radosh, Feldman & Co are the last ones to talk about facts. The fact of the matter is that all of you have attacked a book that none of you read. Where is your sense of morality, of journalistic ethic?

        • Lysander Spooner

          The facts show Front Page Mag ran a positive review of West’s book. When Radosh weighed in the positive review had to go. Such party-line or doctrinaire thought-policing is problematic no matter who is correct in the debate about the book’s facts and conclusions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Exactly! For goodness sake, Breitbart thinks it can run competing perspectives on this *without* resorting to blatant censorship, so what is Frontpage’s obsession with putting forth an “official” party line on this book to the exclusion of all others and insisting that anyone who dissents with Radosh is a new Bircher-McCarthyite on steroids person etc.? When this thing broke I made a post that centered on the fact that if Horowitz and Radosh really think their arguments are correct then they need a remedial course in how to win friends and influence people, because for many conservatives who’ve had to endure the leftist hit jobs on Sarah Palin and others, the entire tone of Radosh and then echoed in the slimy sewer that was Conrad Black’s piece, had a disturbing deja vu quality to so many of us. So much that in the end, what Horowitz and Radosh don’t seem to get or are incapable of getting is that even if we presumed for argument’s sake that they are more in the right on the scholarship (and that has not been proved to my satisfaction), their bullying tone and their whole modus operandi approach of total scorched earth and destruction of West and sneering at all who appreciated her work, would in the end make people feel ashamed to be on the same side with them. That kind of tone and behavior is NOT what conservatives who have to fight this crap from Leftist academia and Leftist Hollywood and Leftist Elite Media should be resorting to with one in the conservative ranks whose only potential (and unproved) sin at worse, is a difference of interpretation on the lessons to be drawn from the clear and undisputed legacy of Soviet espionage and subversion in America during the FDR period. Since when did THAT issue become something that the likes of Radosh believe should merit this kind of bizarre Keith Olbermann style behavior? Considering how Radosh pleads for fair-minded open discussion on something that for real conservatives should be a no-brainer, which is the IDIOCY of supporting military action in Syria (and which really calls into question his credentials as one who can presume to speak for the conservative movement), that makes his behavior all the more bizarre and why I wouldn’t give Radosh my support even if every last item about Hopkins he says is correct, because the issue of whether Hopkins was a dupe or an actual spy, the damage he caused is still there and the issue ultimately is one of mere degree only.

        • Nick

          “Diana West is still on the attack overmy decision to remove a review from Frontpage that could be looked at as endorsement of her embarrassingly kooky book which has pulled the wool over a number of conservative eyes. ” – DH

          “Facts” like those?

    • Dobermite

      “If I were your friend, I would advise you to stop.” – DB

      I initially enter this discussion in exactly that spirit, the spirit of friendship (with David) is you will, and I strongly advised him to do just that.

      I told him that Radosh was way out of line and its a fools errand to join him in this endeavor, particularly to defend and adopt Radosh’s tone in that initial hit piece he called a review. I warned David that this threatens to damage his reputation and all of good will he has engendered on the right.

      I made it clear that I have long been an admirer of his and I am only trying to be helpful, precisely because I have been around the conservative movement long enough to predict the reaction.

      I know the conservative heart and the conservative mind we’ll enough to know that the public flogging of this woman, Diana West, was going to be met with a sharp and harsh rebuke on the right. We have developed, over time, precisely because liberals so often target conservatives (Anita Bryant, Robert Bork, Sarah Palin etc.), a natural instinct to protect our own and strike back at those who target them for ridicule, even when it comes from the right, heck, particularly when it comes from the right, because many conservatives view that as collaborating with the enemy to crucify one of our own, and such individuals are viewed (by conservatives) with contempt.

      The moment this thing started, the moment that initial review was pulled and replaced with Radosh’s Alinskyite hit piece, I knew this is exactly where this was heading, and, in the spirit of friendship, I implored David to rethink this thing and make peace with Diana West, post haste, and do not allow your sense of loyalty to Radosh to overwhelm your good sense.

      Sadly David did not heed my advice, but instead decided to double-down with his friend, and now I suspect his name and reputation have taken a huge hit on the right, one that I am not sure he can ever fully recover from.

      • david horowitz

        Again, it is West who has carried on a relentless personal attack on Radosh and me even publishing an eBook denouncing us as “book burners.” We have addressed her incompetence as historian. Why don’t you read the absurd “rebuttal” she wrote to the main charge against her book, which I posted above. Why can’t any of you address the the arguments?

        • Texas Patriot

          DH: “Again, it is West who has carried on a relentless personal attack on Radosh and me even publishing an eBook denouncing us as ‘book burners.’”

          Where does Ms. West or anyone else denounce you and Mr. Radosh as book-burners? It is undisputed that you made the statement that her book should never have been written, and it is also undisputed that you and Mr. Radosh have attacked Ms. West and her book unmercifully. But I am not aware that anyone has suggested that you have gone so far as to actually burn copies of her book.

        • rsilverm

          I admit that I haven’t read the book. And I probably won’t, and in fairness to you and Radosh I am skeptical of the book’s contentions. But when you and Radosh “addressed her incompetence as historian”, it felt weirdly personal and vindictive, and continues to seem that way. All parties would have been better off if you’d written an alternative review rather than pull the original one. A healthier conversation might have ensued. The discussion that did happen and which continues seems toxic.

          I continue to be a fan of frontpagemag. You guys, otherwise, do great work.

          • Tpartygramma

            True, but doesn’t this give you pause? Read but decide for yourself. No one is invincible, not even Horowitz.

          • semus

            For that reason you owe it to yourself to read the book.

          • hrwolfe

            Sir:
            I rode 95 miles and paid good $$ to see her speak on her “New” book. Though I felt her gracious in conduct my first inclination of wrong was when she stated that the only reason that we decided to decipher the Venona intercepts was to see if there was anything else we could do for our allies the Soviets. I know this to be incorrect. Another thing is she kept referring to herself as a Journalist not a Historian there is a difference and sometimes one goes to press too soon. And last Mr. Horowitz is correct to say argue the points not the person, but all attack and this does not foster anything but hate. Mr. Radosh tried to talk his issues over with her and she exploded. I too have read and read and wanted McCarthy to be at least slightly vindicated because I feel he had a point but was a bad messenger, but even Whittaker Chambers was not fond of his antics. I too wish that it had kept to a scholarly discussion as we basically are all on the same side but Mr. Radosh is concerned, rightly so, of historical accuracy.

        • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

          Again, the biggest National Security risk in this nation’s history is Barack H. Obama. He is a fraud and is now begging Congress and the American people to lead us into a conflict that has no chance of changing anything. David Horowitz refuses to phone Lt. Mike Zullo and ask him to present his court room ready evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a FRAUD. I have been called every possible name in the book by conservatives for simply telling the truth. I am so very disappointed with Mr. Horowitz because I know his platform would go a long way for helping to bring this to evil to the forefront.

        • ffighter13

          Mr. Horowitz,I have bought your work and am more informed for it and appreciate your sometimes brutal honesty.Your audience is larger than you might think and the method of your critique on Diana’s book is alarming to some.I would be lying if I told you I hold you in the high regard I once did.Why you would damage your reputation over this is a mystery and we can only speculate.

        • Eric Croddy

          Horowitz and Radosh are heroes of mine. They’ve demonstrated over the decades their commitment to the value of truthful history telling and to academic freedom. (The publication Heterodoxy literally kept me sane during the 1990s). If anyone knows of their excellent work fighting totalitarian ideas and their nonpareil, intellectual capacities, then it should be clear: Horowitz and Radosh are actually being kind to Ms. West. Most real historians would unlikely give Ms. West the benefit of not just one reply, but multiple ones! Instead of vituperative, she should profusely thank Horowitz in particular for generating so much more publicity surrounding her book than she could by going on various talk radio programs, inter alia.

          • truebearing

            Not to mention that Frontpage Magazine is not obligated to publish anything anyone writes. Horowitz, as the founder, editor, and presumably the owner of Frontpage, does enjoy the right to decide what he wants to endorse. Slouldn’t all of these ardent supporters of free speech, capitalism, and conservatism understand that simple truth?

          • Tpartygramma

            Maybe, but it doesn’t mean that they have to swallow whole everything they read here! Get real.

          • truebearing

            Did I suggest that they do? Those who read West’s book don’t have to swallow it whole, either.
            My objective in this fracas is to point out to those wailing about invective, ad hominem attacks, or charges of totalitarianism, censorship, Stalinism, etc. are doing exactly what they supposedly hold in contempt.
            West should have accepted the Horowitz offer to rebut Radosh on Frontpage. Letting Radosh and West fight it out would have been interesting, and we wouldn’t have all of the cheerleaders throwing punches….at least not right away.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            West didn’t owe Horowitz anything. Horowitz took down a favorable review of her book solely to appease Ron Radosh’s preening ego, and then appeased Radosh further by letting him publish a disgraceful hatchet job review that was devoid of any semblance of serious scholarship. If I’d been in West’s position after that kind of slap in the face where censorship was then compounded with character assassination by a person with a track record of bad reviews on this subject (just ask M. Stanton Evans) who believes everyone should follow his line of thinking only on this subject, I would have told David to take his offer and put it in an appropriate place too. David’s conduct in taking down a positive review (which he could have kept up and attached a disclaimer saying Tapson was only speaking for himself), and then giving Radosh carte blanche to run his invective, like it or not, *does* present a picture of a totalitarian mindset which his quotes, “She should not have written this book” and his patronizing insults of all who have found merit and value in many of the book’s points only further add to. And for that, David only has himself to blame for putting the stroking of Ron Radosh’s preening ego ahead of fair-minded and rational discourse on this subject.

          • MotherofFive5

            Horowitz presents “a picture of a totalitarian mindset.” YES and it’s ugly.

          • Tpartygramma

            Why not? It shows people are interested and not passive viewers. The so-called cheerleaders have been far more “polite” than they had reason to be! It has been interesting to me to see that no one is held up to be a sacred cow, or in this case sacred “bull”.

          • Tpartygramma

            You can’t be serious! This is sarcasm, isn’t it?

          • David Horowitz

            Thanks to you and all the sane people on this thread.

          • Eric Croddy

            If I recall correctly, perhaps it is apocryphal, that Winston Churchill, upon learning of Lenin’s return to Russia in the infamous “sealed train car”, compared him to a plague bacillus being introduced into humanity’s bloodstream (I’m paraphrasing, his was so much more eloquent, of course). What an apt analogy, especially given the still inchoate knowledge of infectious disease at that time! I can only imagine–not even barely–the horror and terror of that time in the face of such unmitigated evil, Nazi as well as Soviet. The SS of course slaughtered Slavs and Jews in their advances into the Soviet Union–Stalin decimated innocents, and even his most loyal lieutenants. That such a dignified and far-seeing giant like Churchill was forced to “dance with the devil” demonstrated such a strength, but what a burden to carry, through and beyond his speech in Fulton, MO. From the sublime to the ridiculous: I encourage anyone to watch the Iron Maiden rockumentary (Flight 666), where during the intro to “Ace’s High” the band play’s Churchill’s “Fight them in the hills. . .” speech. Iron Maiden (2006) was playing in Mumbai, of all places. Not being sure how this would be received in modern, post-colonial India, but not to worry: the crowd went absolutely nuts, and stayed manic all the way through the set. Winston Churchill’s photo hangs on my wall in my living room, and I’m looking for one of Golda Meir next. My heroes may not be perfect, but folks should be GD careful before talking s***t about them!

        • Tpartygramma

          I’ve read the book and can judge for myself! I don’t need a book-banning from this site! Don’t need no stinkin’ rebuttal, either!

        • Chezwick

          David,

          If I could add my two cents as an unqualified admirer and supporter of yours…

          1) Your decision to pull the original endorsement of Ms West’s book was absolutely your prerogative and in no way reflects negatively upon you in any regard, as a conservative or as a man of principle

          2) Your decision to endorse Radosh’s repudiation of West’s scholarship was also your prerogative, BUT, no one can deny that the tone of Radosh’s critique was harsh, perhaps unduly so. Is it any surprise at all that West would react so bitterly when both her credibility as a historian/writer AND her ability to earn a living were undermined by such a comprehensive repudiation of her latest book by a fellow conservative? It’s not the content, but rather the tone of Radosh’s critique that might have ignited such acrimony in the conservative fold. It’s apparent from your statement above that there was much in West’s book that you agreed with. This was not reflected in Radosh’s critique, at least not to any noticeable degree.

          Just a suggestion from a loyal disciple…you could extend an olive-branch to Ms West, standing by the content of your criticism of her book while acknowledging her many contributions to the conservative cause, specifically, the many excellent columns she has penned over the years. She’d probably reject such an overture, considering the depths of her feelings of betrayal, but that would be HER problem. At least you’d be on record as having ATTEMPTED a reconciliation.

          Please consider it as this new round of acrimony dies down.

          • David Horowitz

            Thank you Chezwick. She got a bad review, couldn’t handle it and started a war. She’s going to have to finish it alone. I’m just surprised at how many people can’t follow a simple argument, or engage one.

          • Hesperado

            It’s not the content, but rather the tone of Radosh’s critique that might have ignited such acrimony…”

            Bullfeathers. Diana West in her voluminous and meticulous Rebuttal has shown at least a hundred specific instances where Radosh gets things wrong — in part, or wholly, often to the point of being, as she appropriately puts it, “surreal”.

            Diana West is suffering two calumnies: the first one by Radosh and Horowitz, attempting to spread disinformation about West’s book; the second one by all these keyboard-tatting pundits weighing in obviously without having read West’s Rebuttal (some of them even affecting to be fastidiously neutral and judicious), much less her book.

      • Tpartygramma

        Yes, it does remind me of the hits that Michelle Bachman and, Sarah Palin and others have taken, entirely unjust and uncalled for. Shame on Radosh and Horowitz for backtracking to be with him. It doesn’t sound too different from a good ole boys’ club. Really overboard now. They’ve jumped the shark.

    • Brett Woods

      The one word which fits everything from start to finish in the Horowitz-camp throughout this whole matter is: ‘desperation’.
      From the removal of articles, the name-calling, the straw-men, the appeals to authority, the reposting of smears by authors wholly unaware of the contents of the books, to the general rudeness and loss of manners.

      But most telling of all is perhaps the lack of comprehensive clearly sourced objectionable quotes from West’s book.

    • david horowitz

      First, Debra, I didn’t attack West. She attacked me. I removed a review because I didn’t want to be seen to be endorsing an embarrassingly bad book with politically dangerous conspiracy theories. For that act, and that act alone, she attacked me as a totalitarian and organized an army of fans to accuse me of being a closet communist. So if you have a problem with name calling, bullying and personal attacks, take your complaint to her.

      • Texas Patriot

        DH: “For that act, and that act alone, she attacked me as a totalitarian and organized an army of fans to accuse me of being a closet communist.”

        I haven’t heard anyone accuse you of being a communist, Mr. Horowitz. There are many who now doubt your credentials as a conservative, but I am unaware that anyone has yet claimed that you are in fact a communist. What is plain for all to see is that in your mad passion to slander Ms. West and her book, you and Mr. Radosh have resorted to the Big Lie theory favored by the Boshevists, Stalinists, Leftists, and Neo-Leftists which you and Mr. Radosh claim to have left behind in your youth.

        But where is your proof that Ms. West claims that Churchill was a dupe of the Soviets, that Eisenhower was a communist, or that the Soviet Union was in direct control of the U.S. Government? You claim to have a passion for accuracy and integrity, yet you have failed to provide evidence to substantiate any of those charges.

        Here’s a tip, Mr. Horowitz. The Big Lie theory doesn’t work as well as it did in the days of your youth. Repeating a big enough lie often enough doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true or that anyone will believe it for very long. As Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

        • Jsjk

          Oh for heaven’s sake! Diana West has called Horowitz a “commissar”– what do you think a “commissar” is? She has claimed they’re “ossified totalitarians” and referred to Frontpage as “the Frontpage Commissariat.” And that’s only scratching the surface of her invective.

          • Texas Patriot

            Jsjk: “Oh for heaven’s sake! Diana West has called Horowitz a “commissar”– what do you think a “commissar” is? She has claimed they’re “ossified totalitarians” and referred to Frontpage as “the Frontpage Commissariat.”"

            If Mr. Horowitz has such a passion for accuracy and integrity, perhaps he should be more precise in responding to her claims. He may or may not be a commissar or a totalitarian, but as far as I know, no one has accused him of being a communist.

          • Jsjk

            D. West quote: “It seems that no matter how far to the “right” an old Stalinist moves, he still carries his own private Lubyanka around with him, ready to be dusted off and reoccupied whenever the occasion warrants.”

          • Texas Patriot

            Many people who are not actual communists are called “Stalinist” because of their brutal, dictatorial, and totalitarian ways. The tactics of Messrs. Horowitz and Radosh in attacking Ms. West and her book are plain for all to see. If the shoe fits, wear it.

          • Jsjk

            The reality is that West wrote an ahistorical hit piece on FDR, replete with undocumented conjecture and conspiracy theories, was criticized by historians for her excesses, and now retaliates with ad hominem attacks (since she is incapable of a rebuttal).

          • Texas Patriot

            One of the posters above suggested that Ms. West should be given an opportunity to appear on this site and debate with Mr. Horowitz one on one with no interference from anyone else. I think that is a good idea.

          • David Horowitz

            What are you brain dead? I gave her that opportunity she rejected it and called me a liar for referring to it.

          • semus

            FDR’s Administration was rife with communists, common knowledge and he knew about it. The reality is he trusted communists more than he trusted Republicans.

          • david horowitz

            I understand that Diana West is a cry baby who can’t handle a bad review. But what’s your excuse? WTF is brutal, dictatorial and totalitarian about calling out an airhead and removing an endorsement of her misbegotten work?

          • david horowitz

            I can see why you’re an ally of the Hairsplitter-in-Chief.

          • Nick

            Says the man who has questioned someone’s sanity because the use the term “de facto” … Was the author of this article on your website “playing with a full deck” when he wrote it then?

        • No RNC

          Thought West was accusing FDR and his Administration of being a ‘closet communist’. That appears to be the actuality of that Administration unless you believe Conrad Black’s hagiography of FDR.

        • david horowitz

          I had no opinion of Diana West before all this. If anyone has a mad passion to slander someone who disagrees with her it is West. Re-read Diana West’s words quoted in my article above and you will become acquainted with someone who calling me a Communist or a Communist dupe.

      • TienBing

        Rushing to suppress a “bad” book by killing positive or neutral reviews while subjecting the book and its author to scathing opprobrium should be embarrassing to any honest researcher or academician. Because it doesn’t agree with your views doesn’t make it bad, embarrassing, or dangerous. It just doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the data.
        I have followed and applauded your campaign to overcome the tyranny of limiting expression and thought in academia. I am disappointed when you use your own magazine as a platform to suppress and or discourage contrary thought or expression.
        That there was and still remain communist agents, sympathizers and enablers at high levels of US government, despite denials, is no secret. To take it a step further and claim that those factions not only collude but conspire, is reasonable. There is nothing dangerous about that belief or interpretation of the evidence to support that belief.
        Disagreement with that thesis, based on a different reading of the evidence is also reasonable. A calm critique pointing out and documenting errors in research, bad data, errors of logic, and explaining reasons for disagreement would also be reasonable.
        It would be helpful if Mr. Rodash and yourself would explain your own assembly of the facts into a coherent narrative of what you think about the effects of communist infiltration of the US government.

        • truebearing

          Removing a book review because you don’t agree with the author is well within the rights of an editor/owner of a political website….at least for now, in the remnants of our capitalistic, democratic republic.
          Simple logic tells you that every publisher has a viewpoint, and as a private business, the publisher, or editor, gets to make the call as to what gets reviewed, and what gets a positive review. If a book gets an initial positive review, but is then removed because certain facts are brought to the editor’s attention, the editor is well within ethical grounds to remove said review. First amendment rights extend to editors, too!
          I’m not sure why you imply that Horowitz doesn’t believe communists are in the highest positions of power. I’m reasonably certain that he knows about Obama’s presidency.

          • TienBing

            The implication is in your head.

          • truebearing

            “That there was and still remain communist agents, sympathizers and enablers at high levels of US government, despite denials, is no secret.”

            That sounded like you were suggesting that Horowitz was one of the deniers, but if you weren’t, we can write it off as a lack of clarity in your writing.

            “Because it doesn’t agree with your views doesn’t make it bad, embarrassing, or dangerous. It just doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the data.”
            Doesn’t that rule apply to your views of Horowitz’s views, or is there some special exemption for acadamicians?

          • TienBing

            You are either dishonest or have a reading comprehension disorder. Deliberately misconstrue away; you can “write it off” as anything you like.
            Where did I say any of Horowitz’s views or interpretations bad, embarrassing, or dangerous? Are you sincere or being paid to be this obtuse?

          • Nick

            I tend towards the need for old TB to attend adult literacy classes, going on the assumption that no one can really be that obtuse, but I could be wrong.

          • truebearing

            “…but I could be wrong.”
            Yes, I can believe that. Finally you’ve stumbled onto some truth.

          • Nick

            So you are deliberately being obtuse? Well, well, what a shocker. Not.

          • truebearing

            Do you always get paranoid when soneone questions your meaning?

          • TienBing

            Paranoid? You shouldn’t use words you obviously don’t understand.

          • geoford

            The issue is not that David removed the positive review. It’s that he didn’t explain why he removed it, and left it for others, such as West, to figure out what he meant by removing it. Her reasonable conclusion was that he didn’t agree with the conclusions of the book, yet he claims that West “started it.” He started it. And he made things worse when he lied about how she “refused” to respond, which she didn’t.

            David is not a researcher or a historian and doesn’t know the historical details. He only knows that West’s conclusions carry with them a political risk for him. So he gets someone to write different conclusions, all the while hiding behind the claim that it’s not really the conclusions that matter to him, it’s “the methodology.” Problem is, David has never explained where or when he obtained the expertise to judge methodology. If he relied on Radosh to explain West’s methodology, then David is acting the fool because Radosh’s account of West’s book doesn’t go into West’s footnotes, as it should have if its purpose was to justify David’s claim.

            David’s position gets weaker as time goes on because the substance of West’s book can’t be refuted. So he creates new issues, such as personal attacks and laughable characterizations of his detractors. His newest theme is that his detractors can’t address the facts, as if he knows the first thing about uranium or how the Soviet Embassy in Washington operated in the 1940s.

            West’s thesis is that state lies have a way of starting small and becoming big. David is proving that in microcosm.

          • David Horowitz

            If she had been civil or asked even I would have explained to her why I removed it. Instead she attacked me as a “totalitarian.” I didn’t publicly state why I had removed it because I didn’t want to embarrass the reviewer who is a valued writer for Frontpage who did not have the background to review the book, and admitted as much when I talked to him.

            As for my expertise to judge methodology, it hardly takes rocket science to see that someone who denies she said that Washington was occupied by the Russians and then explains that it was “de facto” occupied is not playing with a full deck.

          • Nick

            It is my understanding that she is not responding to your removal of the initial review at all. Rather she is responding to the content of the article which you then posted.

            So the way you have tried to frame her response to that subsequent article is misleading (at best.)

            And if there were so many red-friendly Yanks trying to promote Soviet policies within America they may as well have been on the Soviet payroll, then one could employ the term “de facto” to describe what was happening, as in “de facto occupation”. As in, there were so many Soviet agents, useful idiots and ideologically friendly people working in the upper reaches of the American government, the Soviets didn’t need to have them all on the payroll. They just needed to use them, in the same way as they used their actual agents – to promote Soviet policies within America. So long as the job got done, there was no need to add anyone else to the payroll.

            IIf there were enough people of that sort in positions of power and influence in America, then there may not have been an actual “occupation” of America (actual Soviets in those positions) but so long as Soviet ideology was accepted as legitimate, and Soviet policies were being pushed through by the American government, then it would make no difference if there were no actual Russian-born Soviets in American government, so long as those people in American government were doing what the Soviets wanted done.

            The puppets may not have been Russian-born Soviets, but if their puppetmasters were, then what’s the difference – to America – at the end of the day?

            The difference is you could legitimately describe the result as a “de facto” occupation, instead of describing it as an actual occupation.

            There is a difference – so your attempted criticism of Ms. West appears to be on shaky ground.

          • Nick

            Was John Guardino playing with a full deck when he wrote this article for your website?

        • David Horowitz

          Nobody suppressed her stupid book. We promoted it. When I became aware of the review after it was published I removed it because I didn’t want to be seen to be endorsing trash that undermined the conservative case. I also invited her to reply to any review we subsequently ran. For this she calls me a “book burner” and you evidently agree. So much the worse for both of you.

          • TienBing

            Telling potential readers that the the book is trash – in essence – don’t buy it – is attempting to throttle the baby in its crib. A form of suppression. A more ethical approach would be to critique actual errors of fact and logic found in the book and offer the correct information along with your alternative interpretations and analysis. Let those interested compare, do the research and decide for themselves if the book is trash.
            The only factual “errors” that I recall yourself or Mr. Rodash noting had to do with quibbles over such issues as who was really agent 19 – based on records of conflicting accounts. The bulk of your criticism concerned interpretation and style.
            What conservative cause is damaged by challenges to orthodox dogma? You turned an opportunity for discussion and education (which is what I thought you where all about – and I always appreciated) into a snarling dog-fight.
            Evoking the connotations of Fahrenheit 451 and adopting the role of noble truth teller falsely branded a nazi is unbecoming. You are no wounded maiden. Please go back to educating in the clear, rational, honest manner you are noted for.

          • Nick

            So you read the book between the initial review going up and it being taken back down again?

            Now that’s what I call speed reading.

      • Martel

        Diana doesn’t have the resources you do to even , it is you who has attempted to raise an army against her, and you failed.

      • herb benty

        See the life of a Conservative David? All these twits come out of the woodwork to muddy the waters. What you said was right on, your website is getting more popular, so out come the fake conservatives. They didn’t like your prose, well whup de do! Most of the writers on this page today are Obama-Soros agents, so don’t let them bother you.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

          A Soros agent, huh? Yeah, David, take a good look at that kind of comment or the comments of youf pal Ziggy who said he didn’t give a s**** where the quote calling you pro-communist was and refused to look for it when challenged. I guess you’ve got your own “kook army” to deal with!

          • herb benty

            Mr. Horowitz is an EX- marxist, and most of Frontpagemags writers are conservatives. The kooks are lefties trying to confuse things like they do….yawn.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            It’s really funny to me how after years of being called every name in the book by extreme leftists at other venues, that I now find myself for the first time being called a “leftie” and a backer of Soros for merely defending the concept of open discussion and academic integrity…..things that Frontpage used to stand for until this controversy when those became secondary to the interests of stroking Ron Radosh’s ego.

          • herb benty

            Never heard of Mr. Radosh till today, anyway its just that if Ms. West was a Mr. West would you hear all this hand-wringing over “ad hominum”, and the idea David is trying to raise an army against West and he is being vicious. She is a fake, get used to it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            I’m just getting used to the fact that I’m going to be laughing at every post you make since you seem to enjoy doing a Sergeant Schultz imitation all the time (insomuch as you show that you know nothing about the principle figures or the issues surrounding why this has become so contentious).

          • herb benty

            I got off the tugboat, am very tired, and may have missed the point. I was so used to answering really bad commentators, ie., lefties attacking right thinkers, Anyway, the Sergant Schulz reference was good. Go’in to sleep. Horowitz for President!!

          • ziggy zoggy

            Read West’s replies to Horowitz or read Horiwitz’s quotes of her on this thread, you sycophantic douchetard.

        • David Horowitz

          Thank you Buck and Benty. The early comments on this thread were just by her Myrmidons. So I very much appreciate knowing there are some sentient souls out there.

          • Nick

            You must admit it is somewhat perplexing to hear you say that there is some sort of ongoing conspiracy theory against you.

            Occam’s razor ring a bell?

      • Buck

        Wow, that’s classic projection.

        Perhaps you are having some kind of psychological breakdown, Mr. Horowitz? A flashback to times gone by?

        I must tell you in all seriousness: Your symptoms indicate that you are rather unwell.

      • Buck

        Shocking hypocrisy. Well unfortunately, not so shocking … given your background.

        Do you agree with Claire Lopez’s sacking?

      • Seek

        Good for you. You are under no obligation, as the proprietor of this site, to publish a given piece of work. That’s not “censorship”; it’s editorial discretion. Show me a magazine anywhere, from The American Spectator to The Nation, that doesn’t practice it. Diana West is a nasty, vindictive person.

    • rsilverm

      I agree. I admit to not having read West’s book. But whatever its deficiencies, the behavior of Radosh and Horowitz here has seemed overly determined, and nasty. Contest the facts, contest the conclusions, fine. But both Radosh and Horowitz went way beyond that, and then claim its West who went personal. Weird. Because I have long appreciated their work otherwise.

      • Texas Patriot

        “Contest the facts, contest the conclusions, fine. But both Radosh and Horowitz went way beyond that, and then claim its West who went personal. Weird.”

        It’s doesn’t seem as weird when you realize that the tactics used by Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz in this case come right out of the Bolshevik and Stalinist playbook for destroying political opponents which they say they have left behind. Even if their political views have changed, it is clear that their political tactics haven’t.

        • truebearing

          And what are you doing by insinuating that they are Leftists? That is a classic Alinsky smear tactic. Throwing around “Bolshevik” and “Stalinist” is doing exactly what you claim to oppose. It’s called hypocrisy.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t know what they are. Maybe you do. But Horowitz claims to have been raised by Communists and the founder of the New Left, and Radosh has been represented to be a former Communist.

            As I stated above, their political views may have changed, but their political tactics have all the earmarks of the Bolshevist and Stalinist ideologies they say they have left behind. Ever heard of the “Big Lie Theory”? The idea is that if you tell a big enough lie often enough that most people will eventually believe it. It’s classic communist disinformation strategy, and it comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

            Horowtiz has been asked numerous times to document his charges that West claims in her book that Churchill was a dupe of the Soviet Union, that Eisenhower was a communist, and that the Soviet Union was in direct control of the Government of the United States. I haven’t any evidence of any of those charges. Have you?

          • truebearing

            I haven’t read West’s book, but have read the piece by Radosh and the responses from Horowitz. I’m not offering an opinion, therefore, on the merits of the arguments on either side, but I am commenting on what I see as hypocritical tactics and the hysterical tone of the West supporters. I also find some of the attacks on Horowitz to be underhanded, cheap, and motivated by paranoia.
            Being a former Leftist is precisely what makes Horowitz so effective at fighting the Left. Be careful when you won’t acknowledge another person’s repentence and redemption. No one is perfect or has all of the answers, but those who overcome being indoctrinated as children to lead the fight against ideological evil deserve more respect….far more respect than you and others have shown on this thread. I doubt any of you have taken the personal risk that David Horowitz has.

          • David Horowitz

            Thank you truebearing. West’s attacks on Radosh and me reflect the same mentality that we criticize in her book. It is this kind of reckless accusation that makes her book completely untrustworthy (she hasn’t the foggiest idea what constitutes evidence) and dangerous for conservatives who are attempting to expose the Communist and Islamist infiltration of our society and government.

          • Buck

            Her book’s “dangerous” now is it?

            Please. Have you heard yourself?

          • david horowitz

            West and her followers can’t read or grasp a logical argument. West argues at length that the suppression of information about the Katyn massacre was the result of Soviet agents’ influence over the Roosevelt administration. The chief advocate of covering up the Soviet role in the Katyn massacre was Churchill. Ergo, if you believe West’s argument you must believe Churchill was a Soviet stooge. I never said that she said Eisenhower was a communist agent though again if you follow her argument about D-Day he had to be a Soviet tool. What I or Radosh said is that her argument tarring everyone in control of American policy as a Soviet dupe is parallel to Robert Welch’s charge that Eisenhower was a Communist. Finally if you look at the first point in her “rebuttal” to Radosh she says that Washington was “defacto” under Soviet control. De Facto means “in fact”. This shows how batty her arguments are. Both in the book and in defense of the book.

          • Jsjk

            West’s “rebuttal”, number two, has been posted on Breitbart. It is even more confused and incoherent than her first rebuttal. One of Radosh’s criticisms of her work (as I understand it) is that she began with a premise (FDR and his administration were filled with Communists and they dutifully enacted Soviet policies, while betraying America) and then seeks out any stray item (no matter how tenuous) to prop up her case while ignoring all disconfirming evidence (ignoring anything which would contradict her claims). Now this should not be the way historians operate. (I recall taking a history course, and one of the most important observations the prof made — he drilled this into students — was to always, always, look for what is left out — What has the historian ignored? The answer oftentimes illuminates the biases of that historian.) Anyway, in West’s bizarre “rebuttal” number two she continuously claims that Radosh by pointing out what she has overlooked is “irrelevant” and that because X doesn’t appear in her text, Radosh can’t fault her! It’s, in a way, hilarious.

          • Phil

            She says clearly that Radosh’s use of occupation implies military occupation and she’s not saying that, so she adds the qualifier “de facto.”

            Meanwhile, Harry Hopkins seems to be in control of all important matters that flow through the White House. Whether he was in the employ of an anonymous NKVD handler, such that his name or pseudonym might appear in a Venona transcript, is irrelevant. Hopkins was too big a fish for that kind of handling. He worked for Roosevelt, and for himself. Which way he leaned when he was obeying himself is the real question. West adduces a lot of evidence that points to an answer.

            I read in Spies [Haynes and Klehr] that some Soviet agents in the U.S. refused payment for their work. Some in fact paid dues to the Soviets for the privilege of spying for them. These were true believers. Someone like that who was as highly placed as Hopkins would not have much of a rap sheet today. His guilt would have to be inferred from his discrete actions, such as when he “privately warned the Soviet embassy that their agents attempting to steal US military secrets were under FBI surveillance” [from West’s blog of 8/8, where it is sourced to the Mitrokhin archive; of course it’s also in her book].

            As for Churchill being the “chief advocate of covering up the Soviet role in the Katyn massacre”–well, Stalin obviously was the chief advocate. I wish you had given your source (other than Radosh) for a judgment like that, as Diana West would do, meticulously. For her part, West answers that she “can find no evidence that Churchill did anything other than follow along in the ugly suppression, not ‘demand’ it, as Radosh claims” [from part 3 of The Rebuttal].

            For myself, I’m slightly less worried about the 22,000 Polish officers slaughtered by the NKVD (Soviet secret police) in the Katyn Forest in 1940 than I am about the fact that of the “seventy-eight thousand of America’s World War II servicemen [who] are still unaccounted for, . . . as many as a third of this total may never have died on Europe’s battlefields, but as hostages in Soviet-era Siberian labor camps long after World War II ended.” These numbers are from Robert S. Miller’s America’s Abandoned Sons (2012). (You might as well spread your anathema to Miller, too, David.) Diana West covers “this dark stain of a national scandal” in chapter 11 of American Betrayal. The idea here seems to be that since the Soviets lost 75 men in battle in WW2 to every soldier lost by the U.S. and Britain combined and therefore lacked the manpower to rebuild their country, the Communists thought it fair for them to conscript into Gulag duty every American and British soldier in a German POW camp that was overrun by the Red Army in 1945. This happened quickly in the months after Yalta (February 1945), where a detailed prisoner-extrication scheme had been agreed to but would never be honored by the Soviets. We had zero leverage over the Soviets after the fighting stopped and they no longer needed our trucks and tanks and second fronts. They were never really our allies to begin with (which is rather the point of West’s book, isn’t it?). It’s horrifying and sickening to read the reactions of Averell Harriman and a dying Roosevelt and others as the realization came to them that they were impotent to recover these men, short of starting a new war with the Soviets. Apart from our other, earlier experience of slavery, it’s the worst thing I’ve ever heard of regarding America. The dark stain of scandal is that it has had to be kept secret by every president since Truman, at first because our leaders were directly implicated in this cosmic screw-up, and later I guess because it was just so toxic, and such an old wound, with all the principals dead, etc., etc.

            This sounds like a bigger deal than Radosh’s wounded scholarly vanity, doesn’t it, David? I doubt that you got as far as chapter 11.

            By the way, I thought Conrad Black’s “takedown” of West was rather eloquent in a curmudgeony way and I’m glad that unlike Radosh he actually tries to connect some dots. Black has a theory of what WW2 and the Cold War were about. (Radosh’s only theory is about Diana West personally.) Black’s theory is weakest, though, when he posits Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower as the three heroes of the Cold War. (Yes, I typed that correctly.) If this business about American POWs in the gulag has any legs, then Truman and Eisenhower are not heroes. Both should have fallen on their swords.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Phildo,

            Radosh never wrote that there was a Soviet military occupation of Washington DC, you mincing, deceitful little @$$hole. Like that little weasel West, you play word games by saying he implied it. (He didn’t. The notion is ridiculous.) occupation or de facto occupation. No difference, $hit for brains liar. Just like her complaint about Radosh calling Hopkins “Soviet agent 19″ instead of “agent 19″ after West made so much effort to convince us that that’s who he was. Unless she meant he was agent 19 of Kaos? Ret@rd.

            As for the rest of your meaningless pettifoggery. Hopkins did not control what went through the White House and being a sympathetic fool rather than a Soviet agent is 100% relevant. West claimed he was an agent without any proof whatsoever. Poor scholarship and a whacko conspiracy theory.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Phildo,

            Stalin had absolutely no way to cover up the Katyn massacre in Britain and America. Claiming Churchill was a dupe is exactly what Radosh and Horowitz criticized her for – and exactly what she denied. More lies and misdirection.

            Missing American servicemen had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RADOSH’S REVIEW OR HOROWITZ’S DEFENSIVE CRITICISM. Halfwit. It sure doesn’t have anything to do with Radosh’s alleged wounded vanity, you hypocritical projectionist. It was Worst who couldn’t handle a poor review and and started shrieking spittle flecked calumny out of wounded pride. Yes, she absolutely did claim Radosh and Horowitz were “liberal” commies. As if you Westards have a monopoly on sympathy for servicemen MIA.

            Worshiping Worst while claiming Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Truman should have committed suicide out of shame shows how out of touch you Westrolls are.

            To recap: Worst claims that; Hopkins was proved to be SOVIET agent 19.

            She claims that the Soviets occupied Washington and controlled U.S. policy fro WWII to the Eisenhower administration.

            She claims that Roosevelt and Churchill were Soviet dupes and war criminals.

            These are acutely paranoid conspiracy theories that she was absolutely unable to prove, but she presents them as fact. Worst has the juvenile habit of making a case and then claiming an accurate description of her lunacy is a lie because she didn’t use a particular word the critic used. She is so fucking stupid that she thinks nobody knows what a synonym and tautology are. And she buries all legitimate criticism under a steaming pile of pettifoggery. You Westrolls practice the same sleazy tactics.

            There is a reason Worst’s book ended up in the “return to sender” pile at every bookstore that was dumb enough to order it. I swear, you Westrolls are as bad as moon bats.

          • Buck

            You’ve read the book then.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            A Ziggy post calls to mind the best line from the 1987 movie “Ruthless People.” “This may be the stupidest person in the world.” :)
            But hey, all of those who have this secret yearning to be like Keith Olbermann can’t help it. :D

          • earlytrane 57

            Ziggy Zoggy:
            The searing hatred of West tells me all I need to know about Radosh and his followers. Instead of calm and collegial debate, there is bitterness and rage. You guys are your worst enemies. I have read two of West’s books and I’m wondering, why the hysteria on the neo-con front? Why the personal animosity, the knife-in-the-gut teeth-clenching loathing? Are you guys off your meds?

          • Buck

            Is this what passes for rational debate on David Horowitz’s website nowadays?

          • Nick
          • Nick

            Was John Guardino’s article, which you ran at Frontpage, “batty” then?

            Was he “not playing with a full deck” when he wrote it?

            Were you “not playing with a full deck” when you published it on your website?

          • Murray Lawrence

            De Facto is never properly used to mean “in fact” but “for all intents and purposes,” as in “Obama is not a communist, but he might as well be,” which is precisely the opposite of “in fact.”

          • cynthia curran

            Besides barring citizenship while instituting some level of legalization for those here already, Mr. Cruz has proposed increasing the number of green cards awarded annually, to 1.35 million from 675,000. He also wants to eliminate the per-country limit that he said left applicants from countries like Mexico, China and India hamstrung when they tried to gain legal entry to this country.

            Ted Cruz is typical of the cheap labor Republicans in Texas just like their counterparts in Orange County and San Diego Counties in California.
            Actually, Eisenhower was a good guy in that he deported 2 million illegal immigrants, Diana West needs to do her history. homework Ted Cruz and Rand Paul favor guest worker programs more so than Eisenhower, so why does the right like this nonsense against a man that deported 2 million illegal immigrants.

          • Tpartygramma

            Actually it shows a worry that they have regressed.

    • truebearing

      You condemn ferocity, name-calling, bullying, and unhinged behavior, then proceed to do exactly what you claim to decry. I applaud you if this was intended as humour. Otherwise…..

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        It’s rather evident you don’t know who Debra Burlingame is. I’ll leave it to others to help you get your foot out of your mouth.

        • truebearing

          Now there is a brilliant bit of reasoning. With no evidence other than my pointing out her hypocrisy, you conclude I wouldn’t have done so if I knew who she was. On the contrary, my little lickspittle friend, I don’t care who someone is, or thinks they are. I respond to what they write. Her comment was hypocritical. Yours was groveling.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Your foot in your mouth is wedged deeper it would seem. There was no hypocrisy on her part. All she did, as we have done, is point out how Horowitz and Radosh are the ones who have damaged themselves by presenting invective, personal attacks and demonization as a substitute for scholarly disagreement.
            Debra Burlingame’s background speaks for itself. Except to those like yourself it would seem.

          • truebearing

            I have nothing against Debra, personally. I just found her comment to be hypocritical and a bit over the top.
            Groveling again? Actually, I believe she posted the comment. Her background had little to do with it.
            David Horowitz has a background that speaks for itself, as well, but ninnyhammers like yourself have been flailing about in paroxysms of overreactive and ridiculous indignation, flinging accusations and invective at him for merely removing a book review.
            It’s shame to see you waste your limited mental capacity trying to defend your idols. Methinks they would do a far better job.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            It’s obvious your reading comprehension skills are not very good. Almost all of our comments stem from the *content* of the “takedown” piece of Radosh’s which is now shown to have been dishonest in a number of areas. Not to mention the fact that David has not offered any substantive response to West’s meticulously documented rebuttal (that he even made a post in advance of two-thirds of the rebuttal being made public shows he just had a canned soundbite prepared like a newspaper’s obituary file and was going to run it with his canned ad homenim remarks and zero substance. The one time he addressed the rebuttal he was selecttive and misleading on the concept of “de facto occupation”)

    • semus

      Exactly what is he afraid of? He’s acting like he’s afraid of something.

    • herb benty

      Horowitz notices errors in a book ON HIS SITE, moves it to another spot, and people including West go bananas. Looks like her book was meant as Gospel.

  • Scott Cable

    She wrote a research paper and turned it into her professor. The professor gave it an F. She got mad at the professor and decided to protest instead of re thinking the work? There is an academic system for this isn’t there? I have the impression this work was more for money than for research. But haven’t read it.

    The actual issue people are looking for clarity on is how much communist influence existed in the United States in the 1900′s? It seems vastly more than I picked up on in my history lessons K-16. The educational system presented me with the idea of “zero” communist influence at any time. Now in 2013 I beg to differ.

    Historically, I think we could agree that communism ended up being wishful thinking about human nature. The results are much worse than expected. Any one supporting communism today should be laughed out of academia.

    • isntlam

      “She got mad at the professor and decided to protest instead of re thinking the work?”
      No, she didn’t. She addressed her criticism in a very rational way.

  • geoford

    David, this response just confirms my new-found opinion of your work. I have long admired your prose style. I think it is very effective. But I now realize that you do not write to discover and sharpen your own thinking. You write to plunge a knife in. Now that I can see that you are not interested in the history that West writes about — you cite but one example about how “occupied power” has the same meaning as “occupation of the American center of power” (wow … really heavy) — I will always be re-thinking what I learned from your books. Were you exaggerating about Chris Hitchens, were you honest about the Democrats after 9/11, is it really true that all the major American cities have been under Democratic party control for 50 years? How fast and loose do you play with the facts? Is this all just the art of polemic warfare to you?

  • Black Eagle

    I read West’s book, as well as the one by Evans and Omerstein, Stalins Secret Agents. Both complement each other, and West made a reasonable case, even if some parts of her work lapsed into speculation. She was clear about that, however. Hopkins appears condemned by the facts to have been a Stalinist agent, either that or FDR was, and was instructing him to do what he did. Whatever the truth, massive help was given to the Soviets by FDR, and more than just Dodge trucks via Murmansk. America helped Stalin on many factors, and West exposes them, unmercifully. Did FDR deserve mercy? Not if half of what West dug up is true, and I say more than half is true, and well documented. Her facts mirror those of Evans and Omerstein.

    This “debate” between West and Horowitz has lost focus, and should return to the “search for truth” which is always the first duty of good scholarship. it has now become something more bitterly personal. The acid being thrown around seems to be far greater than any mere disagreement on the facts.

    I admire both West and Horowitz. How about you both take a cooler, and get back to debating the facts about the many Soviet spys and communist betrayers in FDRs administration, and how that connects to the modern very similar situation.

    • wildjew

      “….get back to debating the facts about the many Soviet spys and communist betrayers in FDRs administration, and how that connects to the modern very similar situation.”

      I can’t say where Obama’s first loyalties lie, to Communism / Marxism or to Islam. Obama does not seem willing to do Putin’s bidding on Islam or maybe it is Putin who is not willing to Obama’s bidding on Islam.

      http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/putin-puts-obama-in-the-hot-seat/

      Putin Puts Obama in the Hot Seat

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Obama does not seem willing to do Putin’s bidding on Islam or maybe it is Putin who is not willing to Obama’s bidding on Islam.”

        It’s the latter. Putin is using Iran. The MB is using America through 0′Bama.

    • Le Fox

      Good post.

      I think West should’ve focused more on primary resources rather than picking from Western journalists. Her thesis could be a lot more sound.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I have some interesting comments to make about Neocons, and they’re not flattering. For one thing, they just can’t let go of that totalitarian urge to shut people up, even though they claim they’re for freedom of speech. It’s revealing itself now in the remarks made by Horowitz here.

  • isntlam

    I hope you’re happy, DH et al, with the way you’ve handled your objections to Diana West’s new book. But you won’t be receiving anymore donations from me.

  • gawxxx

    now children ! put down your crayons and go to your rooms ! , a” time out “is much needed to regain some perspective ! ( grow up all of you ! )

  • Dobermite

    David,

    I have just one question for you, what the heck were you thinking when you let Ron Radosh talk you into this nonsense?

    And please don’t deny it because I know Radosh talked you into this. You have already admitted that it was Radosh who first called to alert you to the ‘mistakes’ in Diana West’s book and the folly of the initial review that was since removed, so anyone who can add 2+2 knows Radosh took you down this road in the first place.

    That said, don’t you realize who you are in the conservative movement and on the anti communist right, as compared to Ronald Radosh?

    Ron Radosh may be a big-shot in academic circles, but most grassroots conservatives couldn’t pick him out of a police lineup, not if there was a million dollars at stake, not if their lives depended on it, therefore Radosh has nothing to lose by alienating conservatives, he has nothing to lose by attacking Diana West just as he had nothing to lose when he attacked Stan Evans and Evans proceeded to clean his clock. Ultimately the only people Radosh is beholden too are the folks he encounters at think tanks and in the faculty lounge, thats where his bread it buttered and none of this stuff alienates that crowd, and he knows it, so he risks absolutely nothing by going after West or Evans, viciously or otherwise.

    You, on the other hand, are an icon in the movement with a direct connection to grassroots conservatives. Prior to this, had you asked the grassroots to contribute to this endeavor or that endeavor, the checks would come fast and furious because the grassroots trusted you and believed wholeheartedly that your causes were our causes. If you said “this is important too me”, most conservatives would automatically say, “then it must be important to all of us.”

    Do you realize how rare that is and that its more precious than gold?

    How many people in the movement have that kind of clout with the grassroots and why on earth would you do anything to damage that?

    This is what I tried to explain to you weeks ago!

    Heck, now you are calling West’s defenders an “army of kooks.”

    Really David, is that where you want to take this now?

    Think David, think long and hard about this, in fact I suggest you consider what your mentor, the late/great Reed Irvine, might have advised you here.

    You knew Reed much better than I did, I know that you were like a son to Reed, I simply adored him from afar, but I find it hard to believe, knowing how much Reed cared about you, that he ever would have allowed the likes of Ron Radosh to talk you into this fools errand. I think he would have reminded you, right or wrong, Diana West is on our side and if you must correct some factual errors, do so in a constructive way, and say or do nothing to bring embarrassment on this woman, do not put her in a position where she can be abused and ridiculed by the left.

    Just my opinion, for whatever its worth.

    • truebearing

      Are you trying to make a politically strategic point, or just offering some disjointed maunderings on the benefits of political popularity and the merits of goose stepping to the party line? Forgive my naivete, but I always thought that vigorous debate and honest disagreement were essential to the health of conservatism. If Horowitz disagrees with West, and says so, what is the harm? Most people have never heard of her either.
      Your jeremiad seems to be more of a threat that Horowitz will lose readers and respect, possibly even be excommunicated, for his audacity to criticize West. We certainly can’t allow that in the conservative collective!
      The suggestion that West should be supported, “right or wrong,” doesn’t sound like conservative thinking. It sounds more like leftist thinking.
      Get a grip. Argue the merits of the debate. Enough with the hysteria.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        THe problem is that Horowitz and Radosh are NOT having a vigorous debate. They are setting forth edicts that if one doesn’t get on bended knee and agree with Radosh, and at the same time call everything about West crazy Birchite-McCarthy on steroids etc. and that if you do see merit in her argument, you’re a fool who has had the wool pulled over your eyes (or you are part of her “kook army” which in the light of Horowitz supporters like “Ziggy” is what really makes me laugh). Horowitz could have avoided the trouble by letting Tapson’s review stand (he could have put his own disclaimer that Tapson only spoke for himself). This controversy is something he and Radosh are solely at fault for because they didn’t practice what they preach regarding academic freedom and ultimately for someone like myself, this has been the equivalent of an A-Rod does steroids moment in that I’ve now seen an ugly side in people I once admired and respected (25 years ago, as a college student, I donated my hardback of “Destructive Generation” to the college library when the softcover came out that I still have) that makes me less inclined to trust them again.

        • truebearing

          First of all, why don’t you let Dobermite respond to my reply to his comment?
          How is pulling a review “setting forth edicts?” Isn’t that a bit hysterical? You seem to think that you should be the editor of Frontpage. Why don’t you start your own political website, then you can call things as you see them.
          How does removing a review equate with denying academic freedom? That conclusion is non sequitur. West isn’t being stifled in her academic or publishing career by the opionions of Radosh or the actions of Horowitz.
          You say that there needs to be a vigorous debate, but just how vigorous? You’re apoplectic as it is. Anymore debate and some of you will have strokes.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Dobermite can speak for himself whenever he feels like it. You got a problem with my exercising *my* First Amendment right to point out the absurdity of your remarks?

          • truebearing

            Yes, I have a problem with you exercising your first amendment rights. All you have to offer is bitter hysteria. You are simply unable to offer anything remotely substantive.

      • semus

        He’s not just disagreeing.

      • TienBing

        Horowitz has repeatedly made the point that West’s viewpoint will embarrass conservatives and hurt the conservative cause. From the beginning of this brouhaha that has been his main concern.
        Maybe concern over Horowitz’s reputation is of equal concern to some.

  • Arnold Townsend

    David Horowitz has put himself on the front lines in this battle for open and fair debate in all arenas of public life but especially in academia. His initial support for left wing causes, largely from the influence of his upbringing, gave way to what is sometimes called “traditional liberalism” — which is what many conservatives, including myself, are today although the “flavor” may differ. He has brought a refreshing view and literate discourse to the realities of the world. It is rare for a left wing intellectual giant such as Mr. Horowitz to come in from the cold — done so at great cost to an otherwise promising career in academia if he had only “towed the line” — while the reverse is all too common today. We have too many cases of so-called conservatives wandering off into swampland, never to be seen in rational mode again.

    Churchill is also a favorite of mine from history. To consider him a Soviet dupe is to ignore all evidence to the contrary. While the rest of the world was rushing to appease Hitler, the biggest threat at the time, Churchill was a lone voice warning of the peril. Churchill had his faults and he was prone to sacrifice soldiers for dubious gain but he was part of the cement that kept the Allies united. Without him, I truly doubt the Allies could’ve won the war.

    I agree with Horowitz — West should not have written that book. It is an embarrassment to her and to the conservative movement.

    • logdon

      Toed the line.
      Towed is a common mistake.

      And Churchill loathed communism with a passion. His Uncle Joe alliance was purely a pragmatic matter of keeping the Soviets in the war thus diverting Hitler’s forces from the English Channel.

  • poptoy1949

    Gosh I do not know what to say regarding all of this. Perhaps one of you two is more correct than the other and i don’t know whom that may be at this time. I will wait and see how all of this plays out.

  • Nick

    Why if Radosh is such an accomplished academic did he load his initial articles with so much emotive and ad hominem language – surely if he was half as clever and accomplished as he wants everyone to believe he is, he would have known that was an example of very poor writing indeed.

    If he believed he had the facts on his side then he ought to have presented them and let the truth (if he had it on his side) speak for himself.

    But no. As for Mr. Horowitz’s attempt to now present himself as the victim of ad hominem attacks – that’s hilarious!

    And as for the idea that (according to him) he and Radosh have spent over 50 years writing about a subject therefore their word should be accepted, end of story, that sort of argument from authority might work in the world of the leftist (look how many people worship Obama and agree with whatever he says) but in the real, free world it does not impress. Once again, if you have the facts, present them and let them speak for themselves.

    There was no need – ever – to use emotive language (no matter how slyly it is done) to create a straw man and there was certainly no need to engage in ad hominem attacks against Ms. West.

    But you did it.

    And long-term it is not Ms. West but you who will pay the price for it.

    • truebearing

      You’re babbling. Where is your fact based refutation of Radosh or Horowitz? I didn’t see a single thing in your entire rant that was factual, yet you pretend to have superior understanding of the history being debated. Maybe you should avail yourself of this opportunity to actually enter the debate — which will require facts, I’m sorry to inform you — and refute Radosh and Horowitz?

      “There was no need – ever – to use emotive language” Nice hypocrisy!
      You even try to make a rather pathetic threat:
      “And long-term it is not Ms. West but you who will pay the price for it.”

      Horowitz will “pay the price” for disagreeing with West? Hasn’t he already, with nonsensical blather like yours plastered all over his website?

      • Nick

        I’m afraid, my boy, that is is you who are babbling. Why didn’t the wonderful Radosh merely give a fact based argument against any conclusions in Ms. West’s book that he disagreed with? This is what one would expect an accomplished academic to do. Instead he loaded his “review” with emotive language and ad hominem attacks. Those are facts my boy. Deal with them, or don’t, I care not a jot.

        As for your nonsensical, rather pathetic straw man – of course Mr. Horowitz will find that there will be consequences to his poor conduct towards Ms. West (aka the victim lady – that’s not sexist or condescending btw, oh no). Already there are people on this thread who have expressed their disappointment with how he has handled this whole affair, said they will no longer buy his books, contribute to his website, etc.

        I certainly wouldn’t buy any more of his books, or his pamphlets – no way would I line Mr. Horowitz’s pockets with any of my hard earned. I suspect many others will have a similar view.

        • truebearing

          Why didn’t you just re-post your previous drivel? All you added was a lame attempt at putting me down with a childish, and wholly ineffectual, “my boy.” Unless making me smile was your objective, it was as pointless as the rest of your whining.
          I noticed that you not only can’t factually debate the topic you clumsily yammer around, but couldn’t effectively deny what I wrote about your infantile threats.

          • Nick

            You’re really not very good at this, are you?

          • truebearing

            Well, that is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I’m a lot better at it than you. You’re still flogging the “adult literacy” put down, apparently deluding yourself into thinking you are original, or clever. You are neither.

          • Nick

            If this Radosh fellow wanted to be taken seriously as a skilled & experienced academic then he should not have written an article loaded with emotive language and ad hominem attacks. He let the side down there.

            There was no need for him to do that if the facts were on his side. All he had to do was present his case in a reasonable, logical manner. But no.

            And it is pretty obvious by now that the approach taken by Messrs. Horowitz and Radosh here has disappointed a lot of people, and there are going to be some who won’t be buying any of his books in future. Horowitz’s own reputation has also suffered. So it does look like he’ll be paying the price for his own behavior.

            If you still have problems reading and comprehending what I wrote, then I suggest you find some adult literacy classes in your area.

          • Nick

            Really? Censorship? Maybe I’ll send the screen capture off to Ms. West. She can update her e-book & show what else you’re trying to suppress.

            Or perhaps this time you’ll let the same comment through:

            If Mr. Radosh wanted to be perceived as an experienced and accomplished academic then he shouldn’t have written a “book review” shot through with emotive language and ad hominem comments. He let the side down badly there.

            If Mr. Radosh believed that he had the facts on his side then he should have simply presented his case in a reasonable and logical manner.

            It is quite clear that many people have been disappointed by the way Messrs Horowitz and Radosh have conducted themselves throughout this affair, and some of those people will no doubt choose not to buy any more of Mr. Horowitz’s books or pamphlets. Mr. Horowitz’s reputation has also suffered. So it looks like Mr. Horowitz will pay a price for whatever it is he’s been doing.

          • Nick

            And TB, if you still have problems understanding any of that, then that’s your problem & no one else’s and you really do need to think about signing up for those adult literacy classes.

          • truebearing

            “Really? Censorship?”
            Are those damn paranoids after you again?
            With all due respect, Nick, I think you are quite a dullard. You can’t debate, just whine. Understanding you couldn’t be easier. You are incensed that Radosh and Horowitz criticized someone who wrote a book that lines up with your paranoid world view. You’re more angry at the percieved insult to yourself than to Ms. West.

            How many times are you going to resort to your childish attempts at wit? You’re embarrassing yourself.

          • Nick

            No I sent in a comment which failed to appear, hence my repeating the same points to see if they made it through a second time.

            As for your attempt at mind reading – well that’s hardly a rigorous approach to well, anything at all. Pretty pathetic, really. And of course, it speaks only to your own intellectual limitations, no one else’s.

            Apparently you are unable to respond to the actual points I raised. Two possibilities then: you require adult literacy classes to help you understand plain English. Or you are able to understand the very straightforward points that were put to you, but are unable to respond to them in an intellectually honest manner. Whatever the reason for your behaviour, it appears you have nothing worthwhile to say. Oh well, never mind …

          • JeanJean

            Your crude tone is hurting your point of view more than it can hurt those you trie to diminish.

            Well yes, Mr. Horowitz lost. He lost trust.

          • truebearing

            No, my point of view is quite unharmed. That you don’t approve is all the encouragement I need to continue with renewed vigor.
            Mr. Horowitz lost the trust of whom? A bunch of hysterical, whiny, crybabies?

          • Nick

            If this Radosh fellow wanted to be taken seriously as a skilled & experienced academic then he should not have written an article loaded with emotive language and ad hominem attacks. He let the side down there.

            There was no need for him to do that if the facts were on his side. All he had to do was present his case in a reasonable, logical manner. But no.

            Don’t you agree?

            Yes or no.

  • elkoz

    Dear Mr. Horowitz,

    I find this whole discussion disturbing for a number of reasons. First, I’ve
    never been a Rodash fan due to some of his comments in the past, which clouded by views over his utterances from that time on.

    Secondly, I was surprised at the way you turned on her, which seemed to come out of left field. Nothing I can directly point to, but it seemed strange; to me at least.

    Thirdly, I have been storing all the articles from both sides in order to post my own article on the value of either or both authors, hoping more historians would
    enter the fray. That is an important component to me because other books I have read seem to corroborate her views; perhaps not in total, but certainly in
    context. Even a history buff, like me, can’t compete with someone who does
    historical research for a living, so I was hoping to have historians fill in the details, but they haven’t entered this forum. Why? I think that is an important question that needs to answered, and I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but I do think that it is incumbent on Frontpage to provide that….both pro and con….. and let the rest of society sort it out. After all, Frontpage started this firestorm, it seems only responsible to provide a thorough unbiased investigation. Forgive me if I am in error in stating that at this point you appear to be substantially biased. I don’t know if your relationship with Rodash is as claimed or not, but that adds a component to this issue that needs to be addressed.

    Lastly, I am disturbed by the name calling and smarmy manners displayed by readers on both sides of this issue. Let’s deal with discovering the truth and leave off the nastiness, or post your real names.

    Rich Kozlovich

    • Tpartygramma

      Interesting to note that those who agreed with you signed in as “guests”.

  • John P

    Conservatives are so outnumbered in today’s struggle that I hate to see any infighting amongst our ranks.

    • Texas Patriot

      Mr. Horowitz claims to be a liberty leaning conservative with a passion for accuracy and integrity:

      “My criticism of Ms. West stems from a passion for accuracy and integrity, neither of which she has as a writer. I’m glad you enjoy my perspective which is that of a liberty-leaning conservative.”

      Yet he has failed to provide actual citations and actual quotations from Ms. West’s book to substantiate the various charges that he and Mr. Radosh have made against her book and against her personally. Where is the integrity in that? Where is the accuracy? If his claimed passion for accuracy and integrity are a myth, why should we take seriously his claim of being any sort of conservative. I don’t see any evidence of it at all.

      • wildjew

        I must confess to having not read Diana West’s book. D. Horowitz claims (I hope I am getting this right) that Joseph McCarthy who West defends called General George C. Marshall (for whom the Marshall plan was named after) a traitor and a Communist spy; part of an immense conspiracy.

        I wrote above:

        On “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character,” Radosh writes: “Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis? It had nothing to do with the Rubik’s Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die. No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as West’s hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents….”

        Horowitz gave space to Radosh. This seems to be a fairly specific claim. What do you think?

        • Texas Patriot

          WJ: “What do you think?”

          I think Horowitz has attacked Diana West personally and professionally, and I think they should meet, on this board, one on one, without any interference from anyone else, to debate every point of contention between them. Then we will see who knows what they are talking about and who doesn’t. If nothing else, if all Horowitz cares about is generating traffic to this board, it should make him a very happy man. ;-)

          • wildjew

            I would support such a debate just as you outline above. I think it would be useful; and informative.

            I have enjoyed reading Diana West on our leader’s folly and dishonesty with respect to this war we’ve been engaged in largely since the 9/11 attacks. I know its been going on even before then, but 9/11 was a wake-up call. Maybe that is why I was surprised to see her go in this direction.

            I have long disagreed (at time vehemently) with this website’s uncritical support for George W. Bush (I voted for Bush in 2000) for so many years in spite of all the falsehoods Bush told about Islam, the Saudis, Israel, etc.

            Last year, Diana West wrote: “Whether true, I think there’s a deeper reason Bush ignored warnings about an Al Qaeda attack (on 9/11/2001). Purely speculating, I think the longstanding Saudi-US relationship, in part fostered/profited from by him and his father before him, gave Bush a sense of protection. I think he was genuinely shocked by the news of the attack as in: How could our Saudi pals/clients/clients of pals have done that to us?”

            She is right. Why won’t Frontpagemag touch this? Former President Bush and his father George H.W. Bush’s family wealth is in large measure due to their personal financial dealings with the Saudis over many years, the Carlyle Group, etc. No one on the right will talk about this conflict that Bush had.

            All that having been said, if Horowitz’s purpose is to try to keep the conservative movement within the bounds of reason; to avoid trafficking in crazy conspiracy theories by 9/11 Truthers, Israel-haters and other Paul supporters, I commend him for that.

            A debate between the two of them, Horowitz and West here on this site, might serve a beneficial purpose. I am with you on that.

          • Texas Patriot

            If Horowitz is so confident that West is off base, he should welcome the chance to expose the fallacies of her views. If West is confident she is on solid ground with her research, she should welcome the debate as well. The rules would be, open a special page just for the debate. Call it West vs. Horowitz or Horowitz vs. West, it doesn’t really matter. Let the debate be live in real time format and confined to West’s book, “American Betrayal”. Give each debater five minutes to respond to the other, and let it continue two hours nonstop. If at the end of the debate, both debaters want more time, continue the debate at another agreed time with notice to all. Let it be on a Friday or Saturday Night, with an adequate opportunity for the largest possible audience. This will give everyone an opportunity to see if Horowitz really believes in the right of Free Speech and if West really has confidence in her research. Whoever wins the debate, both parties would benefit financially. Horowitz would benefit from the opportunity to vastly increase the traffic to his website, and West would have the opportunity to increase the sales of her book. Horowitz would have the opportunity to prove that he is a man of accuracy and integrity as he claims, and West would have the opportunity to prove that she is a ground-breaking conservative author deserving of professional recognition and respect, as she claims. And we in the audience would have an opportunity to observe two conservative titans going head to head, and learn a lot more about a topic of vital concern to us all. It would be a win-win for everybody.

          • wildjew

            There are better than 160 messages on this topic. I am guessing many of these are fans of Diana West? Are you a supporter / follower of West?

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m a supporter of Diana West in the sense that I strongly support her right to free speech and a fair opportunity for her ideas to be heard. On the other hand, I haven’t read either of her books, I don’t read her columns, and I’m not a regular reader or blogger on her website. But I like her ideas, and I admire her courage and willingness to think out of the box and challenge long held assumptions that may or may not make sense. And in fact, I do think there has been something strangely at work that keeps Americans from being “grownup” about the issues we face as a nation, but I’m not sure what it is. And I also think that infiltration of totalitarian Communist and Islamist ideologies have influenced and corrupted our thinking in subtle ways that we may not be fully aware of. So I am ALL IN FAVOR of keeping her in the ring and not letting her get knocked around by a gang of bullies who think they can dictate what the American conservatives think. We need more writers like Diana West who are willing to challenge the established thinking of the Republican Party, or we will soon go the way of the dinosaur.

          • wildjew

            She looks to be right about George W. Bush. The jury is out about West’s support for the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. I have an open mind. No doubt we have a Marxist or a Marxist-leaning (“spread the wealth around”) president in the White House but I don’t blame it on some international or globalist conspiracy. I blame it on STUPID Americans (just as stupid Germans elected their racists) who do not pay attention and do NOT know their history.

          • Texas Patriot

            We’re in a world of hurt, there’s no question about it. Our last two presidents haven’t had a clue on how to go about fighting the global onslaught of totalitarian Islam, and Obama may be even worse than Bush. We’ve been snookered right and left by Islamists at home and abroad, and the latest proposal to strike the Syrian government of Bashir Assad may be even more idiotic than anything so far. All the more reason that we need fresh ideas like those of Diana West that challenge the status quo of “party line” conservative thinking. It’s like the Titanic is headed for an iceberg,and we’re all still asleep at the wheel.

          • JeanJean

            But why do they not know their history?

          • wildjew

            Why do you think Americans don’t know their history? It is available if you look for it. Most Germans listened to and believed Hitler, Goebbels and other propagandists and demagogues. A few listened secretly to BBC broadcasts. Here in the U.S., we have a demagogue in the White House and a complaint mainstream media but unlike Germany, the truth is pervasive here in America presently if you are interested. Why do you think they don’t know their history? Please don’t blame in on our government schools. I got through government schools and I have a fairly decent grasp of American history though I am no historian.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Right. Because West is such a big celebrity.

          • Texas Patriot

            No, because Horowitz, a former Leftist, has accused West, a life-long Conservative, of exaggerating the influence of Soviet Agents over the American government. No issue is more important for Conservatives to understand, and no two debaters could possibly be more diametrically opposed on the issue.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Your stupid heroine has refused to appear here since day one. You are a moron.

  • wildjew

    I am not a regular reader of Ron Radosh.

    Radosh, like Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, supports a Congressional resolution in favor of a military strike on Syria. Radosh supports the resolution “on the grounds that the weakening of presidential power is dangerous. In the current situation regarding Iran — for which Syria is actually a proxy — failure to act is a signal to the mullahs that the U.S. word amounts to little. They will read inaction as an announcement that they can speed up and obtain a working nuclear bomb, and that they have little reason to fear the Obama administration will do anything to stop them.”

    PJM’s Bryan Preston counters with: “These are all fine arguments, but miss the proverbial elephant in the room: Barack Obama. His leadership matters a great deal as we consider whether to strike Syria or not. The personnel he has chosen to surround himself with also matter.

    “As long as we are citing history, it may be wise to pass over the debates that preceded World War II and look directly at the current war and what this president’s actions have left behind in the here and now. Surely this president’s intentions and actions matter?”

    ‘With All Due Respect, Conservatives Would Be Mad to Support Obama on Syria’

    Read Preston here: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/04/with-all-due-respect-conservatives-would-be-mad-to-support-obama-on-syria/

    I am more sympathetic to Preston’s arguments than to Radosh’s arguments that we should support Mr. Obama.

    Radosh’s work appears on P.J. Media. I visit P. J. Media from time to time. I try to read Frontpagemag daily.

    Much has been made of the “war-weariness” of the American public in the media with respect to Syria. I am not so much war-weary as I am Obama-weary or better, Obama “wary.”

    On “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character,” Rodesh writes: “Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis? It had nothing to do with the Rubik’s Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die. No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as West’s hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents….”

    This is an important question, albeit polemic. If Americans are war-weary as a result of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, how much more would Americans have been war-weary following the second world war where we lost hundreds of thousands of American soldiers?

    • Ace

      The Radosh argument that we have to do something in Syria or we’ll lose credibility with the Iranians is laughable. It assumes that the Iranians have considered us credible until just recently. In 2005(?) CNN reported that Condoleezza Rice said “Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or ‘the next steps are in the offing.’” I understand the mullahs are still cowering under their beds waiting for those next steps.

      American officials who make public statements about Iran are the single most important reason why stand up comedians can’t find work in Teheran.

  • Robert_Fl

    Radosh and Horowitz are becoming very tiresome,

  • O Retrógrado Lusófono

    “Our quarrel is with the unwarranted conclusion she draws from this, which is that American policy in World War II was run by the Kremlin.”

    What a nonsense! Thankfully she stopped short of claiming that the war was engineered and instigated by a certain ethnic-religious minority in the US.Then, the absurdity would have been complete.

    As we all know, the war was fought to preserve freedom in Europe and across the world. What could be more quintessentially American? That’s why the US fought side by side with Stalin and his regime, whose foundation had nothing to do with the said ethnic-religious minority.

    Thanks again for the great service you are doing in establishing again and again the truth, Mr. Horowitz. That’s why the liberal academia and media hates you so much. Your world view is sooo different from theirs…

    • AlexanderGofen

      You a a liar. The WWII was started by both Hitler and Stalin in 1939. America fault the war to help Stalin to implement his plan “Icebreaker” (See the book of V. Suvorov), and that plan of Stalin did succeed (albeit partially): http://www.resonoelusono.com/TrueHistoricFacts.htm

      • O Retrógrado Lusófono

        And you are an illiterate. I won’t suggest you look up the word “irony” because, judging by the way you write, you obviously don’t bother to use a dictionary much.

        • Roy_Cam

          Your post was ambiguous. Ever heard of “too much irony spoiled the broth while cooking in a storm”. I would love to read a less ironic comment. It is hard to tell the players here without a program. :)

        • AlexanderGofen

          I got your irony (ignoring your tone), and I made the necessary correction to my reply.

        • Nick

          Oscar Wilde still lives!

          Not.

          • ziggy zoggy

            If he did, you would blow him.

          • Nick

            You’re just jealous.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nickless,

            Wilde used to dream of guys like me, not the other way around. I wish I didn’t include my photo with my screen name. Now you’re probably whacking to it.

          • Nick

            How interesting that you have constructed that image in your mind.

    • TienBing

      “As we all know”
      Well that settles it. We all know.

      “…fought to preserve freedom in Europe and across the world.”

      Ah,there is the rub. Apparently across the world did not include the Soviet Union or any of its soon to become satellites aka occupied and oppressed territories. Why did the US engage in an activity “quintessentially American” for the world, then assist an “ally” to deny the fruits of that “quintessentially American” effort to large numbers of people whose freedom the Americans had just fought so quintessentially to achieve?
      Does the answer to that question have anything to do with the allegiances or ideology of policy makers and advisors in the US government? Were the nature and goals of the “ally” known before or turning the time of the alliance? If not why? If so, then why the decisions that led to the betrayal of that quintessentially American effort?

    • bobguzzardi

      Diana West is a friend of Zion, Israel and the Jews.

      • O Retrógrado Lusófono

        The less credible her.

    • JeanJean

      Are you kidding? The war was fought and preseved freedom to one part of Europe that’s fine. But it ended giving Stalin the other part of Europe to rape.Even you should know, that the good comrade in arms Stalin gayned power and gayned even more when the UN was founded.

      Fighting a massmurder side by siede with a massmurder obviously had a price and the people of eastern Europe had to pay for it.

      • O Retrógrado Lusófono

        Oh God, I guess next time I write an ironic comment on an “Israel First” website like Frontpagemag I’ll have to add a disclaimer to it: ATTENTION: THIS IS AN IRONIC COMMENT.

        • ziggy zoggy

          A better disclaimer would be: ATTENTION: THIS IS AN IDIOTIC COMMENT.

  • http://www.serr8d.blogspot.com/ Serr8d

    Mr. Howowitz, you’ve been led astray by Radosh.

    Diana West is one of us, a TEA Party Hobbit aligned against the far-Left. And, it seems, against the GOP (and it’s agents) who can’t stand Hobbits. Despite the GOP’s weak-Party remonstrations to TEA Party sorts to ‘get house trained’ (Conrad Black), ‘get in line’ (you), ‘vote for DOLE, for McCAIN, for ROMNEY, because it’s THEIR TURN!’ (NRO and the rest of the Establishment GOP, whom WE have abandoned for the most part. Check your coffers).

    We have but to look at the last few decades to see just how quickly Marxism has completely taken over a once-proud political Party, the Democrats. To think that the roots of this malaise didn’t go back to FDR and further, is short-sighted.

    Progressivism was the grease that led to our current stealth-Marxist President; squeezed from the tubes of academia and cultural shifts enabled by their media. That this happened seeming so quickly gives credence to West’s book: there’s more people who were involved in this greasing than anyone previously has successfully ferreted out. Don’t feel bad about missing things; you did help build inroads to West’s discoveries.

    That the political Left – Liberal – Progressive Democrats are so steeped in Marxism (and, yes, still even in eugenics, because abortion is a tool of eugenicists) is obvious. That transformation goes waaaaay back, to FDR and prior, and has to be much deeper than previously discovered. How quickly has this transformation occurred?

    You recall the unionists of the ’70′s? Rock-solid Conservatives who would drag a hippie or a communist (same difference) out and whip his ass on their lunch breaks. Today, they do the heavy lifting, financially and physically, for Socialist Democrats who are but stealth Communists in their far-Left ideology. How long did it take for Kruschev’s prophetic “we will bury you!” to become reality?

    Now, too late, exposure. Fearful GOP pundits are fearful because they allowed this CHANGE to happen, and not overnight. Today, we see the two-minute hates against Hobbits, against West; they hate us because the exposure, it burns.

    Democrats, LeftLibProggs? They’ve won, because they’ve been busy little termites. You, NRO, GOP supports? punch back at the rotten wood underlying the GOP, not at co-workers helping tear it down.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Mr. Horowitz, Diana West was willing to look at all the evidence that was gathered by the Sheriff Joe Arpaio criminal investigation team of professiona career law enforcement officers and career document experts who are very familiar with the Adobe software. The evidence is overwhelming that the April 27th, 2011 compouter generated PDF 9 layered document is a complete and utter forgery. They also are very sure that Obama fraudulently registered with the Selective Service in 2008 NOT in 1980 as the Obama enablers would like all of us to believe. Diana West also concluded that Obama has “committed the biggest FRAUD that was ever committed against the United States.” Is there any sound reason why David Horowitz is not talking to Lt. Mike Zullo to make arrangements to see the evidence he has packaged and been presenting to members of the Congress of the United States over the past 3 weeks? Do you really think these patriotic Americans would be spending 23 months and in some cases more time investigating these CRIMES if they didn’t think is was court room ready? I have enjoyed Frontpage for years and am extremely disappointed that you spend so much time exposing the Obama radicals and could care less about the biggest NATIONAL security risk in this country’s history. Shame on you!

    • AlexanderGofen

      Yes! And even more outrageous: Why did not Horowitz invite Dr. Orly Taitz – the true pioneer in the investigation of the ineligibility and thievery of Obama-Soetoro-Soebarjach-Bounel since 2008? Why? Because Horowitz is merely a party apparatchik, listening the party’s orders, here is why.

      • Roy_Cam

        No party orders. There are unspoken agreements that elites in any movement or class structure come to based on shared character structure.

        In other words, there are taboos being broken here in regard to “decency”. It is the “decency taboo” that is the reason we can’t get any answers to Obama’s birth, his possible dual citizenship, his academic record and his possible illegal Social Security number.

        It is the “decency taboo” that makes McCarthy the ultimate victim of “McCarthyism”, if there ever was one.

        I mean, if Eisenhower didn’t want to round up the Russian refugees, why not say so? Why not DISOBEY?

        And why not come clean as Truman and FDR were unable to do about the communists in government?

        Why should we have had to depend on an unstable man to do what put him under the cross-hairs of a very evil press that was and is to this day an enabler of the destruction of the basic notions that underpin our republic?

        • AlexanderGofen

          “Unspoken agreements that elites in any movement or class structure come to based on shared character structure” is a good euphemism for “omerta”…
          Indeed, I have no idea in which form Horowitz (or Savage) receive the orders from their owners, however I have surely seen and heard “orders” of repoooblican bosses on my own…

          • ziggy zoggy

            So did Horowitz kill Jimmy Hoffa? He and his commie paymasters are responsible for alien abductions? Nut job.

          • Roy_Cam

            No, he didn’t. But, tell me, “ziggy”, do you actually have a job? Has someone actually gone out on that proverbial limb and hired you to carry out some rational task or other?

            I would love to hear about it. :)

            I also think you think that many here actually take in your comments and ponder them.

            Nothing could be further from the truth, but lol if that actually interested you- the truth.

          • ziggy zoggy

            What does my profession have to do with West’s unhinged conspiracy theories? I’m not a paid troll, that’s for sure. Are you?

            You have yet to address Worst’s claims. Your ad hominem s are getting tiresome. Scratch that: you Westrolls and your evasions were worthless from the get go.

            Like most trolls, you pretend you don’t consider my comments while you’re replying to them. This failure to face reality is a common factor with Worst and her Worstrolls.

            Spare me projections about the truth. You nut bars are allergic to it. If I really wanted to talk to I’d go through the drive through at whichever fast food joint you work at. Fuck you very much.

          • Nick

            I know, can you imagine if that ever came in for an interview … he claims to be a professional person, but of course no professional person would act as he does. And he doesn’t seem to realise that all he’s doing is making a fool of himself. Still, so long as his idol likes to watch him dance, eh …

        • ziggy zoggy

          Conspiracy theories from a Westroll. Shocker.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Joe Arpaio is a piece of $hit. 80% of the people suffering in his tent camp jail are pre-trial and 30% are exonerated every trial week. If he had to sit in a jail like that he would cry like a bitch.

      • Nick

        So learned. So articulate.

        Oscar Wilde lives!

  • Seek

    Diana West is a bitter demagogue who makes true conservatives look bad. Her previous book, “The Death of the Grown-Up,” was pure McCarthyist agitprop, filled with a desire to root out Enemies Within, while valuing the sensational over the sensible. In other words, she’s Dinesh D’Souza in a skirt.

    • Roy_Cam

      All name-calling no-facts-ma’am-don’t-need-one comment if there ever was one! lol

      • Seek

        I could write a much longer comment, but why bother? Diana West is a bad writer. I’ve read literally dozens of her editorials on Town Hall, all of them as bad as the next. This is a women who actually believes that Led Zeppelin records have undermined families. She even wrote two consecutive editorials to that effect, one apparently being insufficient. Why take this idiot seriously?

        • ziggy zoggy

          “Coda” was pretty crappy but not crappy enough to undermine most families. Molly Cyrus, maybe.

    • ziggy zoggy

      West is a woman? Are you sure? I saw his photo and I’m not so sure.

      • Nick

        I thought Horowitz’s website couldn’t sink any lower.

        Horowitz has a book review pulled from his website because he doesn’t approve of the book, yet he chooses to allow comments like this to be made on his website?

        Interesting set of standards being employed by Mr. Horowitz.

        Keep it up zig, because you’re making your idol look worse than he already does with every ad hominem comment you make.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Nickless, censorship is bad for a website. Not that pulling a review has anything to do with the comment section.

          You need to look up the definition of ad hominem.

          Keep it up eunuch, because you make your idol look even worse with every comment you make. You Westrolls are fanatics.

          • Nick

            You really don’t have a clue, do you?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nick less, you have failed to make single coherent point. You are a fanatic and an obvious nut job.

          • Nick

            And this is who Horowitz thanks for defending him on his own website.

            With every comment like that, Horowitz’ reputation sinks even lower.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        Those who believe in a LIncoln quote that is part of traditional folklore don’t need a lecture on “fact checking” from someone like you who can’t tell the difference between one gender and another (though it does cement your reputation as a Keith Olbermann clone). :)

        • ziggy zoggy

          What traditional folklore would that be? I’ve read quite a bit of folklore over the years, including stories and legends but I’ve never heard that one. And that is because Barnum is the source of the quote. So is it your ignorance that bothers you, or my superior knowledge of quotes? Or does your tiny limp pecker make you feel inadequate?

          • Nick

            And this is the standard of “debate” Mr. Horowitz believes is acceptable on his website?

            Yet he vanishes a review of a book he doesn’t like. Interesting set of double standards being employed by Mr. Horowitz at his website.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nick less, what debate have you engaged in? You are a hypocrite who refuses to address the issue and focuses on whining and insults. Horowitz replaced one review with another, you douchetard.

          • Nick

            I see that some of your comments have been removed by the moderators.

            Do you have any idea why?

  • Jed West

    The dishonesty and malevolence of David Horowitz is once
    again revealed in this new attack on Diana West and her book American Betrayal. This time, his misleading attack is directed at her 20,000-word
    rebuttal to the self-described “take down” of American Betrayal concocted by the very strange Ronald Radosh.

    In Horowitz’s world, an author he has vigorously maligned has no right to answer the criticisms Horowitz commissioned and published in pieces with titles like “McCarthy On Steroids” and “Diana West Down Crackpot Alley” to name just two.

    The very first sentence of his new piece is a lie, and a big
    one. He mischaracterizes the first part one of her three-part rebuttal to
    Ron Radosh’s first (of four or more) hit piece on her book as an
    “attack on my (Horowitz’s) decision to remove a review from Frontpage.”

    Not so. Horowitz knows that Diana West’s extensive essay at Brieitbart
    is not an “attack” on his decision to censor Mark Tapson’s favorable review of her book. He also knows that it is a factual, exhaustive defense in response to Radosh’s 7,000 word-long self-described “take-down” of her book, her scholarship, her intellect, and her integrity. So the first sentence he
    wrote is, in character, a lie.

    Then, Horowitz characterizes Diana West’s defense of her
    reputation as a “campaign of slander against Ronald Radosh and myself because she is incapable of answering our criticisms of her poorly conceived,
    ill-informed, conspiracy mongering book.” Intemperate, over-the-top language aside, this is also completely false. If readers go to Brietbart http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/05/The-Rebuttal-Part-One,
    they will read the first of the three-part (20,000 word) defense of her book and integrity in which she answers every one of Radosh’s ridiculous charges in detail, with copious documentation and footnotes.
    So, contrary to what Horowitz asserts, she is capable of “answering our (his and
    buddy Radosh) criticisms.”

    And as for “slandering,” Horowitz’s first paragraph explains
    his removal of the initial positive review on his site because it could have
    been construed as an “endorsement of her embarrassingly kooky book which has pulled the wool over a number of conservative eyes.” Get it?
    If you disagree with Horowitz and Radosh then the wool has been “pulled
    over your eyes.” So if you’re one of the many conservatives who like the book, you’re stupid. Who is slandering whom?

    Later in his rambling diatribe, Horowitz states, “West does
    not even bother to characterize the actual views of the academics Radosh
    cites.” She does indeed bother. Read Part Two of the three-part series.
    Untrue again. She goes into exhaustive detail to rebut and/or correct the Radosh fantasies and academics he cites to attack her.

    In summation, Horowitz lapses into pompous, comic opera
    outrage at being called a “book burner.” Of course he is a book burner. He
    has mounted a vitriolic, relentless campaign to destroy her reputation by
    publishing numerous (though repetitive and false) attack pieces on American Betrayal in his own publication and
    elsewhere. He attempted to disappear the initial positive review he published. (It was only saved because Ruthfully Yours reposted it before
    Horowitz purged it from the Frontpage site. Now, quite bizarrely, Horowitz
    claims: “I did not suppress the Frontpage review as she [West] falsely claims, but
    allowed it to appear elsewhere.” (Try to find the Tapson review in the Frontpage archives) To underscore: Horowitz had nothing to do with the review’s being reposted and thus saved elsewhere. Read it here: http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2013/07/08/mark-tapson-on-diana-wests-american-betrayal/)

    Now,mysteriously, Clare Lopez, lost her job for the sin of favorably reviewing American Betrayal at the Gladstone Institute. So yes, book burning is the apt allusion. Horowitz has dedicated his energy to destroying the book and the reputation, if not the career of its author. Finally, and most tellingly, he had the ego, totalitarian instinct, as well as ineptitude, to tell the author that she should “never have written the book.”

    Fortunately, we still live in America and not even a “free speech activist” gets to dictate who writes what book .

    • Texas Patriot

      Jed,

      Did you ever stop to think why Horowitz and Radosh and other so-called “neo-conservatives” might be so desperate to suppress the ideas in Diana’s book?

      I think it’s fairly obvious that their ideology is the prime reason the Republican Party is in such disarray today and why the Grand Old Party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, D. Eisenhower, E. Dirksen, and Barry Goldwater is held in such disrepute among the American people. They may call themselves conservatives, and they may want the American people to think they are conservatives, but there is nothing really conservative about them, and there never has been, and the current state of our economy, our national debt, our ruined education system, and our bankrupt healthcare system, and our utterly absurd foreign policy is proof in the pudding. As Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” Please give Diana my best regards. Her work as unmasked the phony conservatives who have hijacked the Republican Party, and If she can get through this current ordeal and still laugh about it all, there is a great future for her in the New American Renaissance that is surely coming soon.

      History will no doubt reflect it will be largely due to Diana’s hard work, her courage, her common sense, and her steadfast devotion to and search for the truth in the face of the hellish onslaught of lies, personal attacks and character assassination that she now faces that a grassroots movement of All-American Conservatives will have a chance to grow, to gain traction, and to reclaim the GOP from its current abductors, to reclaim America from the sure and certain destruction she now faces, and to reclaim the destiny of the “Last best hope for Humanity” that America represents for the world.

      Hang in there and keep going to bat for your sister.

      She’s an amazing lady and a great American.

      • Jed West

        Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. Don’t worry about Diana. These attacks just energize her and convince her of the rightness of her work. Who could take these unhinged people seriously? The more they devote themselves to this campaign, the less effective they are. Why would they be devoted to this campaign if the book weren’t very important? I’m still not sure what motivates this level of paranoia and vitriol though. They must know that their efforts just focus more attention on the book. Kind regards.

        • Texas Patriot

          Some people are born for greatness, and I think your sister is one of them.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Delusions of grandeur? A persecution complex is a sign of acute paranoia, which your sister displayed in her little read book. It seems to be congenital.

          Her campaign to smear Radosh and Horowitz for a bad review has backfired. Her core sycophants and fellow conspiracy theorists are the only people willing to take her seriously now.

          Maybe the commies made FPM write a bad review. The commies are out to get you! They’re monitoring all your electronic communications. They’re peeping through your windows. They know what you’re doing. Stop that! You’ll go blind!

      • ziggy zoggy

        P.T. Barnum said that, not Lincoln, you ignoramus. With skills like that you could be a fact checker for West’s next book.

        • Texas Patriot
          • ziggy zoggy

            Brainyquote. Maybe you could quote media matters? Just look up Barnum for the truth.

            This Westrolling really is getting sad.

          • Texas Patriot

            Ziggy,

            You’re doing a pretty good job of imitating your hero, David Horowitz, but you’re not doing him any favors. Attacking minutiae, and calling people names for no reason is right out of the Horowitz playbook. Unfortunately, it just makes him look bad, and now it’s making you look bad. Get over it. It’s not the way to win at anything, especially competitive politics.

            Regarding the quote, some people (very few) attribute it to P. T. Barnum (a great American), but most attribute it first to Abraham Lincoln:

            http://www.bartleby.com/73/609.html

            “NUMBER:609

            AUTHOR:Abraham Lincoln (1809–65)

            QUOTATION:You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.

            ATTRIBUTION:Attributed to ABRAHAM LINCOLN.—Alexander K. McClure, “Abe” Lincoln’s Yarns and Stories, p. 184 (1904).

            Many quotation books have also attributed this to Lincoln, and the sources given have varied. According to Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, p. 81 (1953), “Tradition has come to attribute to the Clinton [Illinois] speeches [September 2, 1858] one of Lincoln’s most famous utterances—‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.’” But he goes on to say that the epigram and any references to it have not been located in surviving Lincoln documents.

            This remark has also been attributed to P. T. Barnum.

            SUBJECTS:Fools

            WORKS:Abraham Lincoln Collection”

          • ziggy zoggy

            Project much? I’ve never even met Horowitz but I enjoy his work and he does a lot of good. Good that is not served with whacko conspiracy books coming from paranoid conservatives like West. Neither Horowitz or I use pettifoggery the way you Westrolls do but anybody can be drawn into a troll’s stupidity, if only to refute your idiocy publicly and thoroughly. Look up the definition of pettifoggery. “Attacking minutiae.” What did I say about ignorance?

            And on to your distracting minutiae. Tradition is not an accurate source for quotes, and the overwhelming majority attribute the quote to Barnum – because he is the one who said it. That is why he is on record having said it and Lincoln is not. Again, look up Barnum and you will learn WHY he originated that term and why it was natural to do so. Lincoln was not a huckster and that quote is completely out of character for him. You could provide a quote about Washington and the cherry tree that would be as accurate as the origin of the Lincoln one is. Not surprising, seeing as how you believe West’s unhinged claims.

            The Kremlin did not control U.S. policy in WWII and beyond. Believing something doesn’t make it so.

          • Texas Patriot

            Ziggy,

            If this is an example of how you think you can win general elections with relentless attack dog politics, you might as well fold up your tent and go home right now. It doesn’t work.

            The quote you’re going ballistic about is usually (by far) attributable to Abraham Lincoln, and only rarely (if ever) attributable to P. T. Barnum. But the fact that you would hang your entire tirade on that banana peel is definitely reminiscent of Horowitz. Whether you’ve ever met the man or not, you guys are two peas in a pod. He’s not as funny as you are, true. But he’s just as ridiculous.

            There’s still time for you. You could probably have a great career in comedy. But stay out of politics, seriously. You really don’t want to end up like Horowitz, attacking fellow conservatives for non-existent reasons.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Attack dog politics is what wins elections for the Dems and exactly why Republics lose. Not even the media could protect the Dems if The Republicans attacked them in earnest.

            You have it backwards about the Barnum quote. You will NEVER meet somebody who thinks otherwise. As a thought experiment, start asking people if they know who originated that quote. Nobody will say Lincoln. Try it and see. There is absolutely no documentation that proves Lincoln ever said that but Barnum is on the record many times.

            My issue is that none of you Westrolls will admit that her book’s conclusion is daft. And I place more value on accuracy and integrity than I do unquestioning solidarity (which is a commie standby,) so in that respect I do think like Horowitz. Not exactly something I should be ashamed of.

          • Texas Patriot

            The overall conclusion of Diana West’s book is spot on. Communist ideology HAS influenced our government, and Islamist ideology IS influencing our government. That much is undisputed. HOW much is anybody’s guess, and it could take decades to piece together the full ramifications of these phenomena. West’s book is an important first step in the process, no more and no less, and for that she should be congratulated and praised.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Overall conclusion? Only a handful of sycophants and critics have bothered to read her book. A book about watching paint dry would sell more copies.

          • Texas Patriot
  • DurkaDurka

    What the F is wrong with David? Why are you throwing feces at a wall like a howler monkey? You have no evidence. Let me say that again- “YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE”. What’s the point of this?

    You are shaming this web site. I can’t come here for news when you are pulling a CNN out of your @ss every other day.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Evidence of what? Evidence that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent? Evidence that Roosevelt was a commie dupe? Evidence that West is a vicious harpy with paranoid delusions?

      Only the last has been proven.

  • http://historyscoper.com T.L. Winslow

    I hate any kind of censorship, because when you do it, it starts to become about you not her. So why keep a running verbal brawl going based on a review you removed, when you can easily restore it along with a redundant caveat that you don’t endorse the book and continue your delicious debate on even terms? I don’t know for sure, but if Harry Hopkins wasn’t an agent of Stalin, the latter sure got lucky :) I’m sure this debate is raising your blog’s ratings, so why not invite West to lay out her case with all the space she needs? Meanwhile those who have the time should scope WWII with me free on my Historyscoper site and master the entire top-level history to see everything from the eagle’s view.

    • monostor

      IMHO this whole “criticism” of the never-read-book on the part of Radosh, Horowitz, Feldman &Co smells a rat. The guys and gals had their ego, their prestige hurt. Some unknown outsider dared to uncover something that they still prefer to hide. In DW’s place I would have simply invited them to go to libraries, archives to dig up the “right” documents if you think that my research was not correct. Write 944 counter-end-notes, write all the counter arguments you wish and if you prove me wrong i concede. Until then all we have is a futile and unprincipled l’art pour l’art exposé of feelings. Just a thought.

  • AlexanderGofen

    Unlike some of commentators here, I did read the “American Betrayal” (although for me it was a greater challenge than for them because of my 2nd language English). I have read it and was impressed so much that I posted my 5 star review on Amazon (among over 90 other 5 star reviews).

    Putting the book aside for a while, take a look just at this line of TRUE historic facts in itself: http://www.resonoelusono.com/TrueHistoricFacts.htm

    That is what Raddosh/Horowitz call a “conspiracy”: i.e. just an attempt to add 2+2, to line the facts together, and to connect the dots.

    Some commentators here try to shame Horowitz for his unwarranted attack on this book of Ms. West, recognizing the high prestige of the Front Magazine and paying homage to Horowitz as though a “beacon of conservatives”.

    I am a near 2 decade reader (now rather occasional) of the Front page. Giving them credit for right coverage of certain topics, I am disgusted with their shameless tabooing of the most crucial issue of the modern time – the ineligibility and thievery of Obama. I do not believe in a “selective” honesty. Raddosh/Horowitz are merely party apparatchiks, whose orders they listen as a part of totally controlled “opposition”…

    • wildjew

      You believe Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims, and Frontpagemag, like Joseph Farah’s WND should present that point of view?

      • AlexanderGofen

        ???!!!

        Is this all you can ask about the topic after 5 ugly years of this grotesque mega-hoax?

        1) The unconstitutionality of Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkach-Bounel (the name uncertain) flies into the face disregarding his dubious place of birth: According to his own bio, his first father was a foreigner, and his second father made him an Indonesian citizen;

        2) And if (1) is not enough, he is a mere felon, an identity thief, forger and fraud, still using the SS# of a deceased Mr. Bounel (1890). See more here: http://www.resonoelusono.com/Infamy.htm

        3) In 2008-2009 Front Page attempted to obfuscate and confuse the readers on (1), and later they have never ever touched any aspect of (2) as “not a news fitting their print”;

        4) Yes, WND was near a single agency that covered these crisis since 2008. However you should better follow http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

  • james connolly

    Thank you. I have
    never heard of this fruitcake Diana West and her nutty ideas. She’s either been
    smoking an awful lot of cannabis or is clearly off certain critically needed psychotropic medications to write such crackpot stuff.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

      You obviously aren’t much of an indepenent thinker if you believe you have sufficient information to make a judgment on this based on just this generic, sound-bite only laden response to an incompletely presented detailed rebuttal that disproves the characterizations of this generic sound-bite piece.

    • Martel

      Horowitz I have found someone who blindly swallowed your invective. That’s one in the bag.You and your breathtakingly inept reviewers should crack open a bottle.

      • ziggy zoggy

        You should bend over a crack.

        • Martel

          In a sane moment you will understand its hilarious how you lead the private kook army of Horowitz. A few people who clearly lack the ability to read follow along, but that’s about it.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Wow. Real zinger. You can’t defend Worst’s stupidity and you can’t make a proper insult. What can you do besides sniff Worst’s &$$?

          • Nick

            This is the level of discourse at David Horowitz’s website.

            Note that two of z-z’s comments have already been deleted, so Horowitz drawn a line and decided what is acceptable and what is not.

            Apparently David Horowitz believes that this sort of comment is A-OK, no problem at all.

            Horowitz would do well to climb down off his high horse. Whoops, too late – he’s already fallen off.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

    There is a difference between an Agent of Influence and a “spy”.
    But often agents of influence are very harmful.
    People such as Dexter White and Harry Hopkins did not have to hand over sacks of secrets in order to do great harm.
    Take the example of the “Old China Hands” in the State Department who encouraged the American government to order Chang to halt the successful Manchurian Offensive in 1946.
    These people were not “spies” – but they did lead to the victory of Mao and some 60 million people losing their lives (see “Mao: The Untold Story” and “The Black Book of Communism”). It is not kooky to be angry about such things.

    • bobguzzardi

      Good points I would like to know the impact of the conscious Stalinist Soviet Communist spies who infiltrated the Roosevelt Administration as well as the impact of ‘agents of influence” like Henry Wallace and Harry Hopkins and many others who sympathized to an extraordinary degree with Stalinist Soviet Communists.

      The impact of these Stalinist spies and sympathizers must be written about. Could you recommend sources? Now that Diana West has raised the issue and David Horowitz and Ron Radosh have challenged her, could we refocus on the issue.

      I think it has a lot of relevance to current events and the infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood and Jihadists in the US government in the administrations of both GWBush, through Grover Norquist, and BHObama.

  • Martel

    The Horowitz Foundation is making a caricature out of itself. We have seen several indisputably unqualified attacks on Diana West by Horowitz and friends, in some of those “reviews” it was admitted they where unfamiliar with the book, while others, like the “reviews” by Radosh make you wish he never did. Error after error, misquotes and ad hominem attacks, I cringed reading every line.

    After attacking the integrity of Diana West ,Horowitz, the bully, now wishes to play the victim.

  • mike falkenstein

    IT SEEMS MR HOROWITZ HAS RETURNED TO CPUSA-WEIST IS CORRECT AND WHITTAKER CHAMBERS IS AN UNSUNG FORGOTTEN HERO FDR REGEIME FILLED WITH COMMIES AND IT SEEMS MR HOROWITZ HAS RETURNED HOME TO HIS ROOTS WEIST CORRECT HOROWITZ IS A LIAR SELLING THE OLD DISINFORMATION LINE UNSUBCRIBING HERE DIANA HAS REVEALED ANOTHER QUISLING IN MR HOROWITZ AND OMPANY

  • LDMack

    Have not read this book but think will borrow to do so. Just from reading this article, I am hoping Ms. West has a long and distinguished listing of verifiable citations, resources and bibs which will very strongly support her propositions. Some of this sounds more than a little fantastic on the surface.

    • Roy_Cam

      Now rereading the book. The book will not disappoint you. DH had many of the same objections to Coulter’s Treason.

      Ever heard of Operation Keelhaul? The forceful round-up of Russian refugees from Stalin whom we sent back to the USSR at the end of WWII to die in their gulags? Or sometimes be killed within earshot after having turned them over to the Russians?

      Did LendLease send the Soviets heavy water, uranium, high tech secrets that helped speed their way to the atom bomb? Seems to be a lot of credible evidence.

      Why did FDR and Harry Hopkins reassign the so-called “Red Colonel”, the US colonel who had been sent back state-side from Moscow because his superiors believed he had been passing on secrets to the Soviets, to a high-level administration job with Lend Lease, a job that FDR offered him after a fishing trip (!?) the “Red Colonel” was immediately invited to when he first arrived back in D.C.?

      Why were German peace-feelers rejected when the only condition that the Germans had wanted was to keep the Russian out of Germany post-war?

      When someone says a book “should never have been written” and you say someone is “not qualified” to write the book, yes, that is “book burning”.

      As I stated in a previous post, I have been most confused as to DH’s attitude toward Coulter’s book Treason, DH’s take on Zimmerman’s case, and now this on Diana West.

    • RCraigen

      Long and distinguished listing? How does over 900 footnotes sound to you? Here is the late eminent scholar of this subject, Herbert Romerstein, who addresses that very point, emphatically taking exactly the same position as Ms. West.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwL6K8Kt2Fw

      • ziggy zoggy

        Howard Zinn used footnotes. So did L. Ron Hubbard. So what?

        • RCraigen

          Dokoomentation? Who needs steenkin’ dokoomentation?

          Jeez.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Documentation of what? Quotes don’t support a book’s thesis unless they have facts that do so. West’s doesn’t. Not all the footnotes in the world can prove that the Soviets controlled U.S. policy in WWII and into the Eisenhower administration.

            Reta@rds like you cite footnotes like they’re somehow able to make a bad book indisputable. Frauds like West use them to make their books seem legitimate.

          • Buck

            So you’ve read L. Ron Hubbard?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yes, because I’m not a narrow minded fanatic and I’m interested in what people have to say – to a certain extent. Some of L Rod’s short fiction was quite good. I don’t worship him as a God like you do West, however.

          • Nick

            Classic projection.

            Boring.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    Part 2 of West’s rebuttal is now up at Breitbart. It’s interesting again how David was so anxious to jump the gun with a generic, soundbite style, context-free diss at her without waiting for the full rebutal to be posted for him to dissect. This is bad methodology by any rational standard and it again makes a mockery of the idea that he is in better possession of the tools of sound historical scholarship on this issue.
    Will David ever answer the question of whether or not Radosh’s hit piece on Stanton Evans’ book, which was brilliantly ripped apart by Evans himself, was a model of scholarship? And does David believe that Evans is a crazy conspiracy monger? The answer will say much for David’s credibility, because if he’s determined to singularly focus on Diana West only and avoid saying the same things about those like Evans, it reveals how this is more about his own personal vendetta than anything else.

  • crotalus

    I have read West for years, and have read this book. I read Horowitz for years, but lapsed as a frequent reader, as did home-paging Frontpagemag. I do not come from an academic background, and my life would read like bad fiction, including being on a train crossing West Germany as the wall was going up in Berlin. My issues with Communism and Islam were established before I went to Germany in 1961, and were solidified with direct experience well before I boarded that train. Subsequent Peace Corp training did not re-orient any of my core beliefs, only briefly redirecting my activities, while educating me on military and political expediency, JFK, et al, style. I side with West, et al, on most of this one.

    • Texas Patriot

      Diana West is a breath of fresh air to a tired and worn out and ideologically bankrupt Republican Party. Of course she is a threat to guys like Horowitz and Radosh.

  • Jeanne
  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Radosh & Horowitz,

    All we wanted was a forthright, passionless discussion regarding sources. According to your (now dim) lights which sources should Ms West not have used. And why not. List them. Identify their inadmissibility. In discussing the depth, height and width of Soviet penetration of the government, intelligence and politics of the United States which sources are permitted? Why do you refuse admission to the sources Ms. West relied upon?

    Simple as that. But you, sirs, morphed the conversation into a brutal game in which the winner’s trophy was the game itself – the goal play being, how far, how deep can we drag this lady in the mud.

    Badly done. Badly done.

    The penetration of the soviets was so all-encompassing it was felt in the bowels of the Salmon River wilderness of Idaho. That far, That deep. Oh, my God, how did Stalin’s breath rode the icy winds from Alaska! The stink of him stung our frostbit nostrils.

    The nastiness of this debate sent me to the closet for John Loftus’ (& Mark Aarons) books on “The Secret War Against the Jews” and “The Unholy Trinity”, especially the later. There in the whitest of whites and the blackest of blacks is the story of how Moscow penetrated and consumed the intelligence services of the United States – and its politics. the OSS/CIA (and the military intelligence branches) were so fooled by Moscow one is safe to say (even if Ms. West doesn’t) that Moscow controlled the chessboard. It almost makes the question about Henry Wallace a sideshow. Even those politicians and players who thought they were cleverly fighting Soviet expansion – in their battle against Moscow they were doing the bidding of Moscow.

    Henry Wallace a Soviet agent? The hell he was. He came to Idaho to pick his vice-presidential running mate,who was maybe more besotted with Moscow than he was. All of Idaho knew. The place may be a large mountainous state but it has always been a very small town. If anyone whiffed from those Alaskan icy winds Stalin’s breath – and inhaled it as sweetness – we knew. May the bitter cold stench of that man’s nostrils burn those in inhaling lungs – we prayed.

    I am now 63. I learned all that as a 17 year-old sitting at the kitchen table of the Widow Waunda in Idaho’s Salmon River wilderness. At that table I was taught the proper history. And with it, to hate what must be hated, and to love what must be loved.

    I didn’t know that Frontpage Mag had pickups. What else are they going to drag down Santa Monica Blvd?

  • rogersanderson

    David,

    i would not have paid attention to Diana West and her book if FPM had not attacked her so strongly. I guess you think she is giving Conservatives a bad name because her personal observations and conclusions are different from yours. So you made me buy her book. I believe about 80% of it, the other 20% I tend to believe your point-of-view. Have you been hired as her marketing firm or are you just being silly and childish groveling in the sandbox? It’s time to stop.

    • Laddie_Blah_Blah

      Two people of good will can look at the same set of facts and legitimately come to two different conclusions. The Venona transcripts are still being decrypted, but the Mitrokhin papers have been published. From Mitrokhin, page 107:

      “On September 22, 1939, the day after the outbreak of the war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and other leading Soviet agents for whom Chambers had acted as courier. One of those on the list was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie… Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd. Equally remarkable, Berle simply pigeon-holed his own report. He did not even send a copy to the FBI until the Bureau requested it in 1943.”

      Even more remarkable that that, from page 108:

      “Among the first Soviet agents to penetrate the OSS was Duncan Chaplin Lee (code-named Koch) who became personal assistant to its head, Wild Bill Donovan. Donovan had a relaxed attitude to the recruitment of Communists. ‘I’d put Stalin on the OSS payroll,’ he once said, ‘if I thought it would help us defeat Hitler.’ Throughout the Second World War the NKVD knew vastly more about OSS than OSS knew about the NKVD.”

      Even more remarkable than that, from page 130:

      “Currie had wrongly concluded that a fire-damaged NKGB code book obtained by OSS from the Finns would enable Soviet communications (which went through a further, theoretically impenetrable, encipherment by ‘one-time pad’) to be decrypted. (Given the phenomenal success of Anglo-American code-breakers in breaking the highest grade German and Japanese cyphers Currie’s mistake is understandable). At Roosevelt’s insistence, Donovan returned the NKGB codebook to the Soviet embassy. A doubtless bemused Fitin sent Donovan his ‘sincere thanks.’”

      Those are some of the facts which could lead to various, legitimate, and differing conclusions. If FDR had decided to keep the NKGB codebook, for example, we might now know a lot more than we do, because most of the Venona papers have yet to be decrypted for lack of sufficient knowledge of Soviet encryption codes.

  • KhidonNOR

    Can we please stop this civil war now?

  • Spencer Warren

    These yahoos who defend West have what Churchill termed “regimented” minds. Of course we sent maximum aid to Russia, which was carrying by far the brunt of the battle against the mighty Wehrmacht. These yahoos should pause and read two of the most outstanding works of scholarship on the war: Second Chance. The Triumph of Internationalism in America During World War II, by Robert Divine (1967) and Yalta 1945 by Fraser Harbutt (2010). History must be studied from the vantage point of the actors at the time. President Roosevelt, whose resolute anti-German policies had us in a shooting war before Pearl Harbor, was no appeaser. He was haunted by the memory of the fiasco of President Wilson’s League of Nations and our subsequent isolationism. FDR recognized there was nothing we could do for Eastern Europe, which the Red Army largely occupied by the time of the Yalta conference in February 1945. He did not want futile, rancorous disputes to alienate the Russians and especially the American public from the new United Nations, which he saw as the crucial vehicle to harness our people’s idealism for an active role in world affairs. And in the early Cold War years, Iran in 1946, Korea in 1950, the UN played that role. FDR was far-sighted to focus on American domestic opinion as a crucial factor at Yalta.

    • bobguzzardi

      Was it necessary to give Stalinists veto power in the UN? Did that not undermine the goals of the UN as a vehicle of freedom and Constitutional Republicanism, sometimes called Liberal Internationalism? How did that advance the war against the NAZIs?

  • Ozzy

    I think she may not understand the term DE facto.

    • RCraigen

      See my reply to Mr. Horowitz on this point here.

  • Nick

    Quite so. If this Radosh fellow is such an accomplished academic, why didn’t he act like one and write a proper article?

    As for Horowitz trying to make out that he did Ms. West a big favour by generating publicity for her book – laughable. As if that was his intent all along, eh …

    • ziggy zoggy

      Intentions and results can be very different. You intended to be clever. West intended to convince sane people to believe her insanity.

      • Nick

        Address the point. If Radosh is such an accomplished academic, why didn’t he write a proper article & present a reasoned argument in support of his own view, instead of a “takedown” spiked with emotive language and ad hominem attacks?

        And since you want to try your hand at mind-reading, explain what Horowitz was intending when he tried to make out that he did West a big favour by generating publicity for her book.

        Take your time …

        • ziggy zoggy

          Nickless, the purpose of a review is not to offer its author’s views. It is a critique of another Person’s work.

          Horowitz did not make a big deal out of generating publicity for West’s crappy book. He simply mentioned it. YOU are trying to make a big deal out of it.

          Do you believe the Soviets controlled U.S. policy in WWII and into the Eisenhower administration?

          • Nick

            “… the purpose of a review is not to offer its author’s views. It is a critique of another Person’s work.” – Z

            Avoiding the point again, ho hum. Now you’re just boring.

            And since you want to try your hand at mind-reading, explain what Horowitz was intending when he tried to make out that he did West a big favour by generating publicity for her book.

            “Horowitz did not make a big deal out of generating publicity for West’s crappy book. He simply mentioned it.” – Z

            Avoiding the point again, ho hum. Now you’re just boring.

  • PAUL WESTON

    I don’t know enough in-depth details about this, but one thing I do know is that we on the “right” have far too many powerful enemies on the left to allow us to sink into personal infighting and accusations. I admire both David Horowitz AND Diana West, and ask that this unseemly and weakening argument is dropped ASAP.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Da comrade! We must stand in solidarity!

      Honestly. That’s the impression you give. Nobody should get a free pass for writing such a ridiculous book.

      • Buck

        It is interesting to see that your idol takes that view, but at the same time he chooses not to moderate the comments made on his website (common practice on all websites) & to allow your foul mouthed ad hominem rants to stand.

        Double standards much, Mr. Horowitz?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Suck; Ad hominems? What have you written to support West’s whacko conspiracy theories presented as fact other than ad hominem insults? You have yet to address the facts.

          Censorship is all the rage (literally) on lefty sites and your idol’s hitless and witless site but people with integrity don’t censor things they dislike – especially criticism. Your idol is afraid to come to FPM and engage in honest debate. You Westrolls come here and spew calumny like a septic hose but you cry like the cowardly sissies you are when somebody like me beats you at your own game.

          You are nearly indistinguishable from the lefties who congratulate themselves on their own crappy sites. Impervious to logo, facts or reason and you continue to avoid the issue. Nothing but pettifoggery, denials and accusations from you Westrolls. Fuck you back to the Westasylum you escaped from.

          • Buck

            This is the level of discourse at David Horowitz’s website, apparently. How sad is that.

            I see that z-z did have some of his comments deleted by the moderators. What was that for again?

  • joe

    Mr. Horowitz, you are the one who is beginning to look “kooky”. West has bent you over a barrel, and you simply don’t like it. Stop already. Get on with the business of exposing liberal progressives for what they are.

  • semus

    Well I just wanted to pass along that I just bought the book American Betrayal. Kindle version.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Liar. Not that anybody cares.

      • No RNC

        Mr Horowitz needs a better defender than ziggy zoggy aka radical Radosh!

        • Nick

          But that’s all he’s got. Looks like the title of Diana West’s first book hit the nail on the head: The death of the grown-up

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nickless, I’m pretty sure more people read FPM than West’s boring and narcissistic blog.

            And only a lack wit uses “grown-up” instead of the correct term: Adult. That book was another work of paranoia that looked for enemies under rocks.

            Maybe you Westards should look at the facts instead of. Supporting preconceptions and mindless solidarity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Of course we read FPM. We’re the loyal readers who are quite surprised to see David acting in a manner contrary to everything FPM has stood for in the past and we’re just letting him know that rather than engage in the genuinely mindless solidarity you’ve been showing for David in which all you’ve been offering him on his behalf are porn metaphors, toilet metaphors, refusal to quote source material and all around stupidity as the only way of defending him) :)

        • ziggy zoggy

          Yeah, you conspiracy nut. I’m Radical Radosh and you aren’t paranoid or anything. I’m part of a commie conspiracy to discredit your Fuehrer by using her own writing. You Westrolls have helped plenty of people decide to never read anything West writes, other than to point out her book’s mistakes and faulty conclusions.

          Writing for myself, I will never take her seriously after witnessing you tin-hats attack anybody who criticizes her paranoid delusions. She will always be an object of ridicule for me.

          • Buck

            Are you well? Seriously, you appear quite deranged. Mind you, it is amusing to see that your idol is using you to put his own views across to the public at large.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Suck, so I’m the one who is danged? I’m not the one claiming the Soviets controlled U.S. policy in WWII into the Eisenhower administration. Not surprised you think I’m conspiring with Horowitz to mock you Westrolls. Nutty conspiracy theories and anti-psychotic meds are all you know.

          • Buck

            In all seriousness, if you behave in IRL the way you do on here, then you really need to see a physician.

            If you don’t behave like that IRL, and this is all an act, then there’s no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously.

            It’s worth noting however that Dave’s biggest fan and defender on his own website is someone who’s only real talent is playing the fool.

            Frontpage sinks lower every day.

            Oh well, what do I care, it’s not my website.

            Right, Dave?

          • Martel

            Please dont call people insane, I feel like im the twilight zone when you do. You are not normal. Most likely the reason you are the only one defending DH.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Please don’t pretend the conclusion to West’s conspiratorial book is rational or that any of the Westrolls here are rational either. I feel like I’m at the HuffPo.