America's fifth column - a bit of history from Horowitz

The McGovern Syndrome: A Surrender Is Not a Peace:
"The leftward slide of the Democratic Party, which has made it an uncertain trumpet in matters of war and peace, may be said to have begun with the McGovern presidential campaign of 1972, whose slogan was “Come Home, America” – as though America was the problem and not the aggression of the Communist bloc."

So writes prominent ex-Marxist David Horowitz in a very informative column on NewsMax.com. Horowitz brings to such subjects his own first-person recollections of events as one who was in his early years a second-generation revolutionary collectivist (aka "red diaper baby") and leader of the anti-American movement that called itself, with the help of the MSM, the anti-war movement, the campaign for peace and brotherhood, etc.

As one who was active on the pro-American side in those days, it is refreshing to see someone like Horowitz make the case against the left. For some reason, they get a fairer hearing, perhaps because they are so willing to cut their erstwhile colleagues a bit of slack. I tend to call the leaders of that movement - Tom Hayden, John Kerry, Jerry Rubin, etc. - traitors rather than deluded idealists.

In a relatively short space, Horowitz does trace the anti-war movement from the 1948 Progressive Party presidential campaign of Henry Wallace (FDR's third term VP), through the 1968 Democrat National Convention riots, and the 1972 McGovern campaign, down to the present call from McGovern to surrender in Iraq just as he had wished us to surrender in Vietnam. The article is worth reading as a refresher on this bit of history.

Personally, I am conflicted now as I was in the 60s. Iraq is not the war I would have chosen in 2003, just as Vietnam was not the war I would have chosen in 1965. But, once in, there is no substitute for victory.

The left shows their utter contempt for American interests by continuing to argue why we should never have gone into Iraq long after that has ceased to be a useful subject for debate. They do this as if leaving Iraq precipatately now would be equivalent to never having gone in. But that is like trying to unring a bell. We are in Iraq, and we now have no choice but to see it through. If Kerry had said that during the campaign - we shouldn't have gone in, but we are in, and must win, and I will lead that fight to its successful conclusion - he might be preparing to take office in three weeks instead of making trouble for the country with his stealth backing of attempts to overturn the Ohio election results.

People like McGovern and Kerry are not entitled to have anyone cut them some slack. Both know something of war (McGovern in the Army Air Force in WW2 and Kerry in the Navy in Vietnam), both are certifiably smart and well-educated (McGovern was a college professor, Kerry a lawyer), both served in the US Senate. Since their anti-war efforts were so central to their careers, we are entitled to assume that they gave it considerable thought. Smart, experienced people who advocate policies which can only inure to the harm of the nation are not entitled to be called fools, they show themselves to be our enemies.