The Democrats’ Great Betrayal

gb[To order “The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal,” click here. We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]

Yesterday Regnery published The Great Betrayal, a book I have written to mark a watershed moment not only in the War on Terror, which is really a war against the Islamic Jihad, but a watershed moment in American history. The events and controversies chronicled in The Great Betrayal describe an unprecedented defection by a major political party from an American war in progress, and a five- year effort by that party to sabotage the war and undermine America’s troops in the field.

The Democrats’ campaign against the war in Iraq was very different from their opposition to the war in Vietnam, which came after American troops had been in the field for more than a decade and both parties had agreed on a withdrawal. In contrast, the watershed moment in Iraq came in June 2003, when the war was little more than three months old and American troops were facing a ferocious resistance from terrorist forces. In that month the Democratic Party ran a national TV ad accusing Bush of lying about Saddam’s determination to build weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

The focus of the Democrats’ attack was sixteen words in Bush’s State of the Union Address in which he referred to a British report that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger. The statement was true, but a massive campaign in the leftwing media along with the Democrats’ imputation that Bush had lied about the rationale for the war began a five-year effort to slander America’s commander-in-chief and condemn the war in Iraq as illegal, immoral and unnecessary. The consequences of these attacks can be seen in the emergence of ISIS in the vacuum created by the Democrat-led withdrawal from the region, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the creation of 18 million refugees in six-year tenure of the “anti-war” president, Barack Obama.

Why did the Democrats turn against a war they had authorized and why did they accuse Bush of deceiving the American people (“Bush lied, people died”)? Not because of anything that had taken place on the battlefield in Iraq. The Democrats turned against the war because an anti-war activist named Howard Dean was set to win the Democratic presidential primary – which happened to coincide with the invasion – by a wide margin. It was Dean’s surge in the polls that caused John Kerry and John Edwards who eventually became the Democratic standard bearers to do an about face, repudiate their previous support of the war, and turn on the president as the chief culprit in the conflict rather than the sadistic tyrant Saddam Hussein. The Democrats even lied about the rationale for the war which was not the existence of weapons of mass destruction but Saddam’s violation of the Gulf War truce and 17 UN Resolutions designed to prevent him from building weapons of mass destruction.

Why did the Democrats claim – falsely – that Bush lied about the reasons for the war? Because the Democrats could not admit that they were turning against a war they themselves had authorized for partisan political gain, undoubtedly the most shameful act by a major political party in the nation’s history.

The Democrats went on to conduct a five-year scorched earth campaign against America’s war in Iraq, which was in effect the central front of the war on terror, as the creation of an Islamic terrorist state has since shown. Democrats did not merely oppose the war but slandered the president as a liar and war criminal, defended the leaks of national security programs (which led to their destruction), converted a minor incident in the Abu Ghraib prison into an international scandal which was then used to defame their country and demoralize its troops, and actively sought to defund the war effort in Congress and force an American defeat. They eventually succeeded in this effort by nominating a leftwing anti-war activist who upon reaching the White House proceeded to make America’s defeat in Iraq a fait accompli, thus creating the vacuum that ISIS has filled.

Did Bush lie about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction as the Democrats claimed? The discovery by ISIS of 2200 rockets filled with Sarin that Saddam had buried explodes this myth, which has been wielded for over a decade by America’s enemies and detractors to undermine the war on terror. Could Bush have lied about the intelligence on Iraq? Hardly. Democrats like John Kerry sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of information that Bush did.

It was Kerry and his running mate Edwards who lied, and the entire Democratic Party leadership along with them. And it’s in Syria and the Levant, Afghanistan and Iraq that our country is now paying the price for this treachery and deceit. And soon, if our military leaders have assessed the threat correctly, we will be paying for their treachery here at home.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • SoCalMike

    One can be certain that when a WMD or nuke goes off here thanks to Obama’s and the Dem’s betrayal and treachery ( as well as Repube cowardice and unwillingness to fight back against the Left) the career parasites in the MSM will either blame Bush or Israel.
    They will never blame “our” (and I use this pronoun cautiously because Leftists are not traditional Americans, they actually loath us) president whom they helped with all of their might, deceit and treachery to put into office.
    A pox on them.
    In spite of our own short comings and failures as well as the Dem’s impulsive never-ending all-encompassing urge and instinct to commit treason, we will defeat these 7th century animals masquerading as humans.
    I fear them less than the Left among us who are complete traitors, sell outs, enablers and accomplices.
    Democrats, YOU all suck.
    You’re nothing but Leftist Fascist PsOS brainwashed and conformed like the Orcs in Lord of the Rings. That’s who Tolkien used and created to depict you all.
    That’s who and what you are.
    Love it, live it, and breathe it.

    • DowntotheBone

      Hard to disagree.

  • swemson

    Perhaps the most vile part of the left’s betrayal of America is the callous way in which they flagrantly waste the lives of our brave young men serving in uniform as if they were chips in a penny ante poker game.

    How many of our precious young American soldiers & marines have been sacrificed on the alter of the left’s political expediency?

    They’re all traitors to our country, and should be treated as such.

    fs

    • sundance69

      And this President is setting us up to fail again..

    • I_Am_Me

      The Left despises military personnel. They relish in the death of Patriots, who are the bulwark against the Utopia the Leftists want to build and control for the “betterment of man.”

  • dwayne roberson

    I remember the Rockefeller memo leak, to coordinate Democrat sabotage of our troops. What I had forgotten was the Dean poll surge. Thanks David for an accurate analysis of the pivot point and paradigm change for Democrat war policy. ‘I voted for the war before I voted against It”. I have never witnessed or more despicable political tactic of betrayal for power without regard for the lives of our Americans in uniform and a complicit media completely absent of conscience.

  • wildjew

    I have one quibble. Israel (Jerusalem) was and is “in effect the central front of the war on (Islamic) terror….” Obama and his party are the most hostile yet but the GOP (my party) is not guiltless by any means. Both parties support a Muslim-enemy state in Israel’s heartland. Both parties are guilty of treachery and deceit in that regard.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      That’s true. While the Democrats were deliberate in their treachery, the Bush administration was ignorant and there was no excuse for that.

      David gave us a good history of the Democrats’ failure. As I remember it, Bush’s failure started soon after 9/11 when Arafat halted the suicide attacks and waited to see his status in Bush’s new outlook. Bush immediate separated Arafat from al Qaeda saying the Arafat could be a terrorists because he’s a head of state. Tony Blair soon appeared in photo ops with the ugly troll. Arafat realized he was in the clear and resumed the suicide attacks which continued until the wall was built.

      Eventually Israel (was it Netanyahu?) brought the evidence to Bush and he changed his position. But he blundered again with his unilateral announcement of a two-state solution! No terror state in Afghanistan but its fine to build one on Israel’s border. Bush’s push for democracy allowed Hamas to be elected in Gaza. This paved the way for the Arab Spring and the rise of Islamists everywhere.

      This is my memory of the Republican’s failure. Did I leave out any of the story?

      • wildjew

        I am part way through former terrorism czar Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.”

        The thing that amazes me is how all the wrong conclusions were drawn from the 9/11/2001 attacks on the United States by devout Muslims. Like President Bush, Richard Clarke believes Islam is a beautiful religion. Clarke wrote of “al-Qaeda’s hatred of freedom, of its perversion of a beautiful religion, of the need to avoid religious or ethnic prejudice.” (page 31)

        I suppose if you think suicide terror as a means to strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers — like we saw on 9/11 was — beautiful (millions of Muslims did think it was beautiful) you might draw that conclusion.

        Another conclusion one might think in the aftermath of these horrible attacks would be the insanity of helping Islam gain a foothold anywhere in the world, especially in the Middle East and especially in the heart of Israel. But the conclusions drawn from the September attacks by our leaders were 1) Islam is a religion of peace and 2) Palestinian jihadists deserve a state.

        • tagalog

          I would have deep reservations about the truth of any claim that Richard Clarke makes about anything that happened during the Bush administration.

          • wildjew

            He looks to be a Bill Clinton loyalist. Clarke’s criticism of Bush centers on the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has not been the focus of my criticism of former President Bush. His making the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy was a terrible betrayal along with his misleading the American people about Islam; these did incalculable damage to the conservative movement and the Republican brand. Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners the Republican party has a branding problem, only he has not idea why. George W. Bush (along with Karl Rove) is why the Republican party has a branding problem.

        • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

          You just reminded me of an important omission: Bush’s continued support for Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime has funded the learning centers of jihadism. But Bush, like the others, believe it isn’t Islam but “hijackers of a religion.”

          Keep us informed of what you learn from Clarke’s book but as tagalog reminds us, read it with some skepticism as he is partisan.

          • wildjew

            Clarke is another in a long line of apologists for Islam. I am listening to the audio version. I don’t know if Bush actually believes a beautiful and peaceful religion had been hijacked by ‘terrorists’ or if Bush felt he needed to mislead the public for some reason or another. I’m not saying he should have said Islam declared war against America (or we are at war with the Muslim world) after the September attacks but he needed to covey the idea that there is a problem inherent in Islam itself. I don’t know who wrote the speech he gave September 20, 2001 before a joint session of Congress and the American people. Maybe Clarke wrote part of it. After the attacks, Clarke said he sat down at his computer and began: “Who did this? Why do they hate us?” When it came to defining the enemy, the September speech was awful.

          • bigjulie

            The Bush Administration was chock-a-block full of arrogant and ignorant stupidity about Islam, based primarily on near-total ignorance of the obvious-to-anyone-who-looked violent basics of how the “religion” had been advanced since Mohammad’s founding of it in the 7th century. It was the same arrogant stupidity that gave us banners declaring “Mission Accomplished!” The entire history of what happened since 9/11 is a blatant illustration of that arrogant stupidity (about Islam) at work! The “trusted advisors” were merely spewing their own angles intended to advance only their personal agendas, not allow America to arm itself with a full knowledge of what It was up against! American leaders were blinded by a blizzard of serial snow-jobs from people intending to advance personal interests as well as the interests of the brand of Islam they were associated with, as they told the Bushies how much everyone wanted “democracy” but conveniently failed to inform them that the basis of loyalty extant was not to “country” but to “tribe”!

          • WW4

            “Clarke is another in a long line of apologists for Islam.”

            He did write that book relatively recently after his exit from the administration. What his “apologism” shows us is that despite his placement as chief counter-terrorism guy, WE DIDN’T KNOW JACK SQUAT ABOUT ISLAM back then. Though in hindsight, one can point to many previous “warnings,” 9/11 really was the wake up call–the first page in this “new” chapter of history.

            While I am not a proponent of Mr. Bush’s war and find little noble about Horowitz and fellow neoconservative
            revisionism concerning their own discredited championing of a policy doomed by misunderstanding and stupidity from conception, there has always been some silver lining to it. We actually began to become educated about that region. We now can recognize Islam, itself–not a “perversion” of it–is the problem.

          • wildjew

            If an ordinary schlub like me instinctively recognized the 9/11 attacks were Islam in action, why didn’t geniuses like Clarke, Bush, Rice, Powell, Cheney, etc.?

          • WW4

            Complete ignorance, and political expedience.

            It’s not “negative:” it’s actually a credit to our democratic nature that we originally thought “oh, this is just a perversion of Islam.” It took a while to be disabused of that, just as it took awhile to be disabused of the idea that we could “help” that region modernize. (Well, we haven’t fully gotten the picture yet).

          • MrUniteUs1

            Who did Bush make sure got out of the country after the 9-11 attack. Bin laden’s relatives. Turns out they have business connections with the Bushes.

          • wildjew

            Someone in the White House apparently authorized flights out of the U.S. for members of the Saudi royal family and bin Laden family within hours of the attacks, at a time FAA prohibited all domestic flights. I was told that was widely reported in the media. I don’t remember reading it. You can only wonder why the mainstream media chose not to embarrass the administration with that story.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Yes, I remember that story. Of course, Bush had warm personal relations with the Saudis, perhaps especially with Prince Bandar bin-Sultan.

          • nightspore

            Yes, this is an issue. It’s fully described in Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud, which is an excellent analysis of the Bushes’ conflicted relations in the war against Islamists.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      True. But again, it is important to distinguish between Conservative and Establishment Republicans. The Establishment folk are more like the Democrats than they are their fellow Republicans of a more Conservative bent. Conservatives tend to be very supportive of Israel.

      • wildjew

        I don’t think the distinction matters in over all the scheme of things. What matters is the direction the party has taken since George W. Bush visa-vis Israel. Is former President Bush an Establishment Republican? Is Rush Limbaugh an Establishment Republican? Because he stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush. He still does.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          I would say the Bush is definitely Establishment with a few Conservative instincts. I believe he was badly advised by Condoleeza Rice and most especially Colin Powell on foreign affairs. Rush is certainly a Conservative, and I don’t know what his assessment of Bush is.

          • wildjew

            Might we say John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are Establishment with a few Conservative instincts?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            With Boehner I would say no – he’s really pure Establishment, loving to play the big shot and completely unconcerned with political philosophy. With McConnell it’s a little harder to tell, but I’m inclined to think that when he takes a Conservative stand, as for example against the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection bill that muzzled free speech, he did so out of narrow self-interest (i.e. he recognized that muzzling political speech helps his Democratic opponents). His comments about Conservatives have often been contemptuous.

          • wildjew

            Mitt Romney is classic Republican Establishment, don’t you think?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Yes, although he had a lot of us fooled into thinking he was at least somewhat Conservative during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. But his refusal to repudiate Romneycare on principle, or to fight Obama by declaring him to be a radical, showed that he was still basically Establishment and not Conservative.

  • DavidBastable

    How can anybody have any pride in calling himself or herself a Democrat?

  • watsa46

    On the side: The far left recognized that it F…ked the Democrats when they used them to pass the Ocare bill! The American democrats were the STUPID one for allowing themselves to be used.

  • tagalog

    Coalition troops discovered weapons of mass destruction after we invaded Iraq. It was first ignored, then said to be weapons that were a decade old. Also, there was some evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein moved his WMD to Syria by truck. The use by Syria of poison gas during the hostilities in the past couple of years lends some credence to that claim. It might be added that they were still effective after yet another decade of non-use.

    • Larry Larkin

      Not just by truck, the most senior officer in Saddam’s air force transportation wing is on the record as stating that they made dozens of flights carrying personnel, equipment, and material out of Iraq and into Syria in the 6 weeks before the invasion.
      And US satellite observations verified the information.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Why does Bush get a pass for releasing the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL? What did Iraq have to do with 9-11? Why did supporters of the war insist on cutting taxes, rather than pay for the war? Why does Bush get a pass for releasing the head of Why did neocons try to convince Clinton to attack Iraq? Why no mentions of the veterans that survived the war in Iraq, including those the left body parts behind on Veterans Day?

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      We’re critical of Bush, too. Read wildjew above and my other posts.

      • MrUniteUs1

        Read your post. Good info. But no mention of Bush releasing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL. Again why does Bush get a pass?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Why did Clinton pass on taking out osama bin laden?

          If Clinton picked up obl, 9/11 might have been prevented.

  • Kafir911

    Over a decade ago, the “Unholy Alliance” revealed the link between Islamists and the Progressives. NerO deserves to be impeached.

  • DowntotheBone

    “democrat” is arguably a synonym for domestic enemy.

  • WTFUAMERIKA

    I just always looked at it as sabotaging the war effort. They are a disgusting lot and must be eradicated form our country. They’re traitors PERIOD!!!

  • http://senatormark4.org/Alinsky5.htm senatormark4

    Is it really a surprise to find that a group of politicians manipulated the media to get their way? If the Obamacare architect feels free to announce that they wrote that law to fool the people, the boat has already left They simply don’t care and there is NO opposition worthy of the name.

    when the President steps out http://senatormark4.org/Alinsky5.htm headed down a path that is anti-Constitutional, surrounded by his terrorist pals, and supported by a media trained in leftist/Marxist ideology, there is only one way to fight them. You must draw the bright line of the First Amendment and filter everything through it.

    NO aid, NO visas, NO tax benefits for businesses where the First Amendment is not honored.

  • ata777

    While i agree with Horowitz, Bush doesn’t get a pass here. He let Democrats perpetrate their slander without challenge, an abdication that reached its low point when he didn’t blast Harry “the war is lost” Reid.

    A real president would have demanded five minutes of prime time TV and to tell Reid and his fellow Democrats they were utterly shameless for calling a war lost while American troops remain in harm’s way.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      That is true – Bush was and is typical of the Republican Establishment-Man, who hates fighting the Democrats so much (especially on moral grounds) that he becomes a punching bag for them and loses to them by default.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    It’s great to know that our Sec’y of State misled the American public about our so-called atrocities in Vietnam and then, again, lied in his teeth about his vote for the Iraq venture, and is now lying about our dealings with Iran, Gaza, Hamas, etc. Come to think of it: he’s in a real pickle. He married into the Heinz food empire, and his pickling is a symbol of his elitist deceptions.

  • Ghulam Muhammed

    ISIS would have never surfaced, if Saddam had been there at the helm. However, it was Israel’s obsession to prevent Saddam acquiring clearness capability, that put paid to Saddam’s rule and his life and bring in the chaos in that region. It is Israel that is the sole cause of all destruction and disturbance in the Middle East and one cannot merely play around with secondary facts to take away the blame from Israel. There is evidence that Bush and Cheney had no evidence against Saddam’s Iraq and Cheney even pressed on with the intelligence people to find something so that they could go through their plan to invade Iraq, as per the diktats of Israel. In the event Bush and Cheney played a fraud on the American people and all those that are siding with them, are in fact betrayer of people’s trust. Besides, there is no consensus in the Muslim World, if ISIS has anything to do with Muslims or Islam. It is being regarded as Israel’s proxy to capture further land in the region. No use Mr.David Horrorowitch conjuring up esoteric stories to hide the truth and nothing but the truth and the whole truth.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      Another conspiracy theory to blame the West for ISIS. ISIS is Islam. Own it, Muhammed.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Are any of the 19 identified 9/11 hijackers still alive?

      That would be a great way to prove that Bush and Cheney were lying. Right?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      ISIS, ISLAMIC State. The crap on their black jihadi flag is written in arabic – withe quotes from your koran.

      Why are you so stupid? Do you have a concussion?

    • bigjulie

      Wow! Who knew!! ISIS is nothing more than a proxy of Israel’s…or is this what happens when you smoke too much hashish?

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      There is evidence that Bush and Cheney had no evidence against Saddam’s
      Iraq and Cheney even pressed on with the intelligence people to find
      something so that they could go through their plan to invade Iraq, as
      per the diktats of Israel.

      Sorry Muhammad, but the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found otherwise – no one in CIA was pressured by Bush, Cheney, or anyone else. The Committee’s report was even signed by every Democrat – and when the Democrats admit Bush was innocent, you know he was innocent.

    • iluvisrael

      you prove my theory: When stupid, blame the Jews – you silly little girl!

  • cree

    Leftists have moral deficiency, lack of ethics and honor towards integrity. They pathologically lie, make up stories, slander, twist or ignore the facts. They’re phonies, two-faced, they willingly accomplice with each other to spread vitriol. Their supposed compassion for the masses is condescension. They ignore and make their consciences mute to their behavior which then they justify their behavior. The ends justify the means. And astoundingly all their bad attributes is supposedly the progress of the human condition towards a better world that only they are capable of creating, denouncing the conservative attributes as inferior, degenerate and dangerous.
    Leftists betray the human endeavor, the pursuit of happiness, they betray holiness.

    • truebearing

      Leftism is progressive, but only in the sense that it makes things progressively worse. They have hijacked the term “progressive” and attempted to change its meaning to connote moral superiority. The word has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with direction.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Both Horowitz “Unholy Alliance” and Ann Coulter’s “Treason” gave us the heads up long ago. The left has a visceral hatred of our culture, our nation, and our history. This doesn’t mean Republican’s like Bush get off scot-free or that there isn’t such a thing as “loyal opposition.” The left’s willingness to sabotage our nation goes beyond the bounds of ignorance, haplessness, or mere partisan machinations. The left is wrong, morally wrong.

    • truebearing

      Marxism, like Islam, should be banned in a democratic constitutional republic as both are inherently seditious and admittedly intent on overthrowing free nations. No known member should be allowed to hold office, teach school, be a member of the military, government, or police force.

      At some point, we all need to recognize that these people are a clear and present threat to our survival. Tolerance is not a virtue when it comes to survival.

  • MrUniteUs1

    On this Veteran’s Day we remember Robert Smalls.
    “He sat at the conference table next to Frederick Douglass as they
    tried to convince President Abraham Lincoln that African Americans
    should be allowed to fight for their own freedom. He served five terms
    in Congress. He ran a newspaper and helped found a state Republican
    Party. But first, he had to win his freedom.

    To do that, he conceived a plan that struck a blow against the Confederacy so
    significant that he was heralded across the nation. Carrying out his
    mission required bravery, intelligence and precision timing — attributes
    that many whites at that time thought blacks didn’t possess.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/civil-war-hero-robert-smalls-seized-the-opportunity-to-be-free/2012/02/23/gIQAcGBtmR_story.html

  • hrwolfe

    In Mr. Horowitz’s defense I would point that his stated difference with the 60′s eara was that the War had been going on for 10 years when the anti- war movement heated up only 3 months for the Iraq anti war movement to get up and going, which is a fair statement. I do agree that there are many parallels after that fact between the two.

  • truebearing

    The Democrats are no longer Democrats. They are a coalition of Marxists, Maoists, Leninist, Trotskyists, Socialists, and a horde of uneducated, self-indulgent, immoral crooks and fools who only think of themselves. It is the party of evil and evil is what has been visited upon this nation through their treachery.

    If they are willing to abandon our troops and desert our nation in order to win elections, or intentionally ram through socialized health care, replete with death panels, what aren’t they willing to do for power? Nothing. They are cut from the same cloth as the pathologically ruthless leftists who preceded them.

    Marxism and Islam are antithetical to our form of government and are, by their own definition, seditious. Both are expressly intent on overthrowing our constitutional democratic republic, therefore adherents to either cult are always engaged in treason or sedition, therefore should be banned from public office, service in the military, government, teaching profession, media, or anywhere they can spread their evil doctrines.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      “If they are willing to abandon our troops and desert our nation in order
      to win elections, or intentionally ram through socialized health care,
      replete with death panels, what aren’t they willing to do for power?
      Nothing.”

      That rather nicely sums up the Party.

    • WW4

      When you say “no longer Democrats” what do you mean “no longer?” FDR makes these guys look like amateurs.

      • truebearing

        I don’t think FDR had anything on Obama when it comes to the leftward tilt, but the entire Democratic Party wasn’t anti-American back then.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Many Isis members were served under Sadaam, Malaki kicked them out the Army. Along comes this guy from Bush released from Guantamo, singing a song they wanted to hear.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    I agree. But remember, this involves a distinctly intellectual/moral fight, not just a disagreement over which parts of Obamacare to keep, which is the only kind of “fight” I expect from RINO/Establishment men. I point this out because the Republican Establishment is both unwilling and unable to make the moral case, and I am running into more and more Conservatives who seem to be losing the ability to distinguish between Establishment and Conservative.

  • UCSPanther

    This is just like the time before WWII: Weak willed western leaders, violent expansionistic ideologies, and world anarchy…

    I wish my Grandfather was still alive. I would be asking him about what he knew of world affairs then, and if he had any advice…

    • sundance69

      I doubt that your grandfather would have ever dreamed that America could sink to the levels that it has, he is probably rolling over in his grave. Almost every single entity in this country is on or near the brink of destruction. I could go on and on about the problems this nation faces and is going to face soon if the American voters don’t elect someone that has the balls to take this country by the horns and do what has to be done to turn it around and do it without worrying about the implications and what people think.
      I urge anyone that loves this country as I do to read or listen to(Audible) David Horowitz’s new book, Take No Prisoners. I learned things about the Republicans, Conservatives and the Tea Party that I never heard before. You need to read it and then tell your friends about it and make your vote count for something.

  • 11bravo

    Karl Rove and the rest of the establishment need to put in as much effort demonizing the progressives/democrat party as they do the Tea Party. The MSM will probably NEVER be on our side. Another messaging model needs to be worked on.

  • KiwiRob

    The whole point in being a soldier it to get shot at and possibly die. You can demonise the Democrates as much as you like but the Republicans are just as bad, that lot are robbing the middle and lower classes blind in the never ending quest for wealth. The American people are screrwed whichever political party they vote for.