Home > Horrors of Iraq brought to London

Horrors of Iraq brought to London

by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 20 July 2005
19 comments

Wars and conflicts International Attack-Terrorism UK

NO ONE doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs that killed and caused mayhem in London yesterday. No one should also doubt that this outrage has been coming since the day Tony Blair joined George Bush in their bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq.
They are “Blair’s bombs,” and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about other people’s violence. He was warned. Indeed, the only reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was that which predicted a sharp increase in terrorism “with Britain and Britons a target.”

Had Blair heeded that warning—instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat—the Londoners who died yesterday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq “exported no terrorist threat to his neighbors,” and that Saddam Hussein was “implacably hostile to al-Qaeda.”

Blair and Bush’s invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenseless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, Blair’s adventure became self-fulfilling, and his epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain.

– - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FOR MORE than a year, he has urged the British to “move on” from Iraq, and this week, it seemed that his spin doctors and good fortune had joined hands. The awarding of the 2012 Olympics to London created the fleeting illusion that all was well, regardless of messy events in a faraway country.
Above all, the G8 meeting in Scotland and its accompanying "Make Poverty History" campaign and circus of celebrities served as a cover for what is arguably the greatest political scandal of modern times: an illegal, rapacious invasion conceived in lies.

Over the past two weeks, the contrast between the coverage of the G8, its marches and pop concerts, and another “global” event has been salutary. The World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul has had virtually no coverage, yet the evidence it has produced, the most searing to date, has been the silent specter at the Geldof extravaganzas.

The tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation, the kind governments dare not hold. Its expert, eyewitness testimonies, said the author Arundhati Roy, a tribunal jury member, “demonstrate that even those of us who have tried to follow the war closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq.”

The most shocking was given by Dahr Jamail—for me, the finest reporter working in Iraq. He shames the flak-jacketed, cliché-crunching camp followers known as “embeds.” He described how the hospitals of besieged Falluja had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment—with U.S. Marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering, and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency blood prevented from reaching them. Children and the elderly were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood.

We have heard little of this. Imagine for a moment the London hospitals that received the victims of yesterday’s bombing under such an attack. Unimaginable? But it happens, in our name.

– - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE TWO men responsible for this, George Bush and Tony Blair, arrived smiling at the G8 meeting at Gleneagles. No one in the British “mainstream” has made the obvious connection of what they have done in Iraq. No one has stood up and said that Blair’s smoke-and-mirrors “debt cancellation” at best amounts to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalizing Iraq, where British and American violence is the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
The unstated theme of the G8 week has been silencing and pacifying and co-opting dissent and truth. The mawkish images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park beckoned a willful, self-satisfied ignorance. There were no images of murdered Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush’s snipers. They and the suffering inflicted on their country have been airbrushed.

On the front page of the Guardian, the Age of Irony celebrated as real life became more satirical than satire could ever be. There was Bob Geldof resting his smiling face on smiling Blair’s shoulder—the war criminal and his knighted jester.

Elsewhere, there was a heroically silhouetted Bono, who celebrates men like Jeffrey Sachs as saviors of the world’s poor while lauding “compassionate” George Bush’s “war on terror” as one of his generation’s greatest achievements; and there was Gordon Brown, the enforcer of unfair rules of trade, saying incredibly that “unfair rules of trade shackle poor people”; and Paul Wolfowitz, beaming: This is the man who, before he was handed control of the World Bank, devised much of Bush’s so-called neo-conservative putsch, the bloodfest in Iraq and the notion of “endless war.”

And if you missed all that, there is a downloadable pdf kit from “one Campaign” e-mail to “help you organize your very own ongoing Live8 party.” The suppression of African singers and bands, parked where Geldof decreed in an environmental theme park in Cornwall, far from the vaunted global audience, was described correctly by Andy Kershaw as “musical apartheid.”

For the politicians and pop stars and church leaders and polite people who believed Blair and Brown when they declared their “great moral crusade” against poverty, Iraq was an embarrassment. The killing of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians by mostly American gunfire—reported in a peer-reviewed study in The Lancet—was deleted from mainstream debate.

Has there ever been a censorship as complete and insidious and ingenious as this? In our free societies, the unmentionable is that “the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people,” wrote the playwright Arthur Miller, “and so the evidence has to be internally denied.” Not only denied, but distracted by an entire court of jesters.

Deploying the unction of Geldof, Bono, Madonna, Paul McCartney and company, the invaders and plunderers of Iraq and the pawnbrokers of Africa, headquartered in London and Washington, have pulled off an unprecedented scam: the antithesis of February 15, 2003, when 2 million people brought both their hearts and brains and anger to the streets of London.

The people killed and maimed in Iraq and the people willfully impoverished in Africa by our governments and our institutions in our name, deserve the return of that anger—before Blair and his court can exploit the atrocity and tragedy that has now befallen London, and which need never have happened.

Forum posts

  • Blair said the bombings were an attack on “our values, our way of life.” Commenting in Scotland where he was meeting with the other leaders of the G8 club of rich nations, Bush dared to say: “The contrast couldn’t be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill—those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks,” he said.

    Ask the victims of the U.S. blitzkrieg on Falluja about who has evil in their hearts. Ask the survivors of the U.S. cluster bombs that fell like rain on the Hilla region south of Baghdad about who takes innocent lives. Ask Muslims around the world outraged by the photos of abuse and humiliation suffered by the prisoners at Abu Ghraib about whose values and way of life are under attack

    • Ask the 100,000 kurds dug up from Saddam’s mass graves about who has evil in their hearts.

      Ask the family of Leon Klinghoffer who has evil in their hearts.

      Ask the families of Pan Am Flight 103 that was blown up over Scotland who has evil in their hearts.

      Ask the widow and family of Daniel Pearl who has evil in their hearts?

      Ask the innocent africans working at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania who has evil in their hearts?

      Muslim animals have been murdering, maiming and killing LONG before Iraq. Stop making excuses for these barbarians.

    • Where do you get 100 000 kurds from ? You’re not making things up again are you ? Who the fuck is leon klinghoffer ? Pan Am 103 -nothing to do with present debate, however if we’re talking ancient history ..........Ask the relatrives of the 17 Million people killed by the US since 1945.
      Daniel Pearl ? i suppose thats the equivalent of US ’collateral damage’.
      Muslim animals ? That’s a bit uncivilsed, isn’t it ?

    • my dear person - you are angry - you are angry because you dont understand what is really going on and have been brainwashed into believing the fantastical lies that come from the media. all the atrocities you mention were CARRIED OUT BY WESTERN FORCES in order to BLAME MUSLIMS in order TO INVADE THEIR COUNTRIES AND SEIZE THEIR ASSETS. its that simple if you look at it from a different perspective - the true perspective. step back from the anger - get angry because you have been decieved for all of your life, and re-evaluate where that anger should be focussed - on the GUILTY.

    • Oh, I understand...sure. Western forces blew up Pan Am Flight 103? Western forces hijacked the Achille Lauro, shot Leon Klinghoffer and dumped him overboard (wheelchair and all)? Western forces murdered Israeli Athletes in Munich in 1972? Western Forces bombed the US Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983? Western Forces bombed the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Western Forces carried out the first world trade center bombing in 1993? Western Forces bombed the USS Cole in 2000?

      Is that what you expect me to believe? Or were all of these cowardly acts carried out by muslim animals?

    • The CIA has a 60 year history of going around the earth overthrowing democratically elected governments and assassinating their leaders for the interests of the oil barons. Their drug smuggling and dirty tricks are infamous and well known to every educated peoson on the planet since they have gone from country to country commiting murder and crime everywhere they go. President Kennedy planned to abolish the CIA and he is dead now because of that.

      Uneducated and stupid people like to pretend that the U.S.A. is some great country that does good everywhere it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. They are the same ones who do not want to know the truth and prefer to place the blame on "terrorists" when we all know that the biggest terrorist on the planet is the U.S. government/CIA.

      Sorry to pop your touchy feely moment but you make me puke with your stupidity so I guess we are even.

    • The USA is a great country. Try to be gay and out of the closet in Saudi Arabia...

      Try to be a woman and vote in Saudi Arabia

      Try to be a black man and feed yourself in Sudan

      Try to criticize the government in Iran

      Try to be a religious minority in Indonesia

      America is the greatest expression of freedom and liberty that the world has ever known. Islam is an abomination and a scourge on the planet, and the more they kill innocent people, the more we will bomb them into the stone age (which, coincidentally, is not that far removed for them.)

    • Firstly, I agree the USA is a great and beautiful country -it’s just run by people at the moment that give it a bad name throughout the world.

      The perversion of Islam that is Saudi Arabia was fostered and is perpetuated by Washington to keep a parasitical ’royal family’ in riches whilst the rest are deprived. This is done so the US can have cheap oil. You know this anyway don’t you ?

      Sudan is fucked in debt by the World bank, which is presided over by that architect of mass murder in Iraq, the slimy haired zionist, Wolfowitz.

      They have elections in Iran,(agree not that democratic) that are however ...he he...not rigged.

      TheMuslim backlash in Indonesia is a response to the CIA sponsored Suharto awarding himself $10bn and brutal police massacres. It is also a backlash to the USA using it as a big fucking playground for the personnel at US bases, and sexual exploitation.

      Your comments about ’bombing into the stoneage’ reveal fear and Islamophobia.

    • Well, I guess the US is to blame for ALL the ills of the planet... We make suicide bombers kill jews on Tel Aviv buses... We make african potentates starve and murder their own people...we make Indonesian muslims torture and murder christians....we make Robert Mugabe evict all white farmers, and ruin the agricultrure of his own country...I stand corrected.

      Maybe you liked our country better when it was run by a lying, draft-dodging opportunist whose great military conquests included nintendo-bombing that scary serbian army, incinerating 100 people in Waco, leveling a sudanese aspirin factory, and presiding over a daring nighttime raid on an 8 year old cuban boy.

    • ’’Well, I guess the US is to blame for ALL the ills of the planet...’’ -like a chastised child saying ’’Right I hate you all now’’.
      Yes Clinton was marginally better, he didn’t nurture as much hatred round the world as the present administration.

      Your admission of standing corrected is accepted.

    • Are you for real?, do you walk around with your eyes closed?

      what about vietnam?, bay of pigs, the iilegal invasion of irag, kosovo. need i say more?

      the american government has been bombing, shooting and torturing innocent civilians, in the name of "freedom" for the past 60 years and more.

      the truth is your average american is so fucking ignorant, they prefer to belive the simple lies of bush and his nazi regime, then a complicated truth, which may not agree with their coca cola/budweiser fueled views that america really is the land of the brave and home of the free.

      america land of the ignorant and home of the dumb, please prove me wrong.

  • John, you say "The people killed and maimed in Iraq and the people willfully impoverished in Africa by our governments and our institutions in our name, deserve the return of that anger—before Blair and his court can exploit the atrocity and tragedy that has now befallen London, and which need never have happened".

    Terrorists are scary. But what is more frighening are those who do not see or understand the depth and history of Islamic terroesism and only see it as being caused by the Iraqi war and Western capitalisum.

    First: Long before Islamic insurgent’s “terrorists” started making headlines the past 20 years, and increasingly the last 4, and right up to the 7/7 London bombings, Islamic terroists have been terrorizing other civilizations for the past 1350 years. Muslims would have YOU believe that it all started with the “crusaders” and it is their fault.. Well if you believe that you are not doing your own homework. The crusade came about as a direct result of the Islamic insurgency (that was very violent) forced on Europe. The crusade was organized to stop these Islamic terrorists at that time in history. You don’t have to believe me, you have access to the internet, do your own home work.

    Second: Islam has always been 100% dedicated to creating a one-world government state under Islamic rule by its clerics. That 100% dedication started 1350 years ago and remains exactly the same today. Again, you don’t have to believe me, you have access to the internet, do your own home work.

    Third: To use the current state of the Islamic world’s terrorist position, and to try to compress all of Islamic aggressive history into the Iraq war is not logical. The war has only uncovered the terrorist idealigy for the rest of the world to see up close and personel. The scope and range of Islamic terrorism stretches back 1350 years. Their cause and objective has not changed and is the same today and tomorrow. The main difference today is that the Islamic insurgency “terrorists” now have access to oil cash, modern transportation and communication. That is the only reason they are ever so much more present on todays world stage. But make no mistake, they have always been on this course of action through out history and they always will in the future. Making the exceuse for them that it is centered on the Iraqi war places you under self-delusion. And the Islamic terrorists like it when you are deluded you can count on it. Do your homework.

    Forth: your say "the people willfully impoverished in Africa by our governments" This is not ture. It is the very African governments who have let their people down. In Sudan it is the Arab-Muslim terrorists who are attacting and keeping the peole down and are backed by the government. This is a religous war John. You have to start doing your home work. The West did not, and does not keep those countries down. The West provide more money to those countries they they could ever pay back. Sad part is by the time those government officials get their hands out of those bags of money there is not enough to help the people who need it most.

    Fifth: Muslims have already decided what to do with Jesus Christ. Question is what are you going to do with Him?

    • Hey Christian Hatemonger, did you know that the Christian religion is the largest hate group in the United States. Its stupid people like you that enable the government full of crooks to continue to rip off the American people while your kind keeps trying to find a non existent God to solve your imaginary problems like what your neighbors are doing in their bedrooms and bathrooms, what they watch on t.v. and read, what education their kids get in school and try to force everyone to believe that stupid shit your brain dead religions teach to the brain dead like you who know nothing of value or nothing of truth because your head is so full of hate and ridiculous nonsense. The big problem is that your I.Q. is very low so of course you are not capable of independent thought. You’re like a bobble head parrot who repeats every stupid thing he hears a classic moron with too much time on his hands.

    • King Richard 1st , the Lion Heart was basically in love with violence and conflict. This was why he went on a crusade. His love of violence was well documented even taking his new wife on a travelling fighting spree. Vast parts of London were leased and auctioned off to finance his violent wanderings. It was dressed up as a religous crusade against the non believers.

    • And then of course don’t forget the history of Iraq, leaving aside Palestine and the other manipulated Arab countries for a moment:

      History of Iraq — UK and US imperial interventions

    • Excellent link. Not forgetting Churchill was the first to give the order to gas the Kurds from bi planes.

    • Well, yeah Richard the Lion Heart was essentially a fool and a very lucky bastard once in a while, but his love for violence was not exactly exceptional in his time. Crusades and senseless slaughter, pillage, rape, burning, beheading and all those lovely christian virtues were not only reserved for those infidel muslims and their wealth or the traditional pre-crusading warm-up bloodbaths of Jews but also, or let us say even more so against christians with the audacity to think theirs is the right to hold slightly different views than those the mighty church proscribed for them to have.

      The politics of crusading however were of a much more boring reality. They were of oppertunism, betrayal, backdoor dealings, stupidity and incompetence, cleverness, senselessness and whatever the ingredients of politics throughout the ages. This was never otherwise, nor will it ever be as long as humans are human.

      The thing that always was the most dangerous was, is and will be is idealism. Idealism to the extent that one is willing to die for it is also something to kill for. It excludes doubt and it just doesn’t work that well for most people to kill, bomb, pillage and rape in the name of doubt.

      Luckily for us and the earth idealism is very rare among politicians. Rather less fortunate is that doubt is also.

  • ummm, yoo-hoo

    do conservatives even know the ideaology they are following...LOL@U

    The Truth Hurts: Coulter and Horowitz both Fabian Socialists

    David Horowitz and Ann Coulter There is a "Third Kind" living amongst us in this Republic. This "Third Kind" comes in a political package disguising themselves as Republicans, or World Conservatives of the International Democrat Union and Democrats, or World Liberals of The Third Way.

    The "Third Kind" wants to establish a self-regulating classless society on planet earth. I have had radio encounters with two Republican members of the "Third Kind," Ann Coulter (author of the best seller Slander) and David Horowitz (author of Empire and Revolution and How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas).

    People such as Coulter and Horowitz do not want to talk about the very real existence of the "Third Kind" nor do they want you to know what is really taking place in this Republic and the world.

    The "Third Kind" is actually the Radical Capitalist Class (RCC). The Radical Capitalist Class is a group of people that are trying desperately to spread a very specific American/British Capitalism based on Fabian Socialism to encompass the globe.

    It is the belief of the RCC that this Capitalism if left unopposed will naturally evolve into a Socialism that will pave the way for Communism.

    The RCC uses a continuous process known as Permanent Revolution (War, Revolution and Terrorism) to remove all impediments (national sovereignty) for the necessary establishment of Free Trade in order to create a global Free Market System (Economic Democracy), catalyst for Socialism.

    The ideas of this "Third Kind" are alien to the American people. Here are a few facts to ponder:

    In 1983, former Trilateral Commission (a Fabian Society Front group) members, George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher, founded an organization called the International Democratic Union (IDU).

    The IDU views itself as an organization of World Conservatives dedicated to establishing a Free Market System and a "compassionate conservatism." There are 70 member parties from around the world to include the Republican Party...

    At the gatherings of the IDU the members set around and plot strategy "to win the political argument" and "planning winning election strategies" for World Conservatism.

    Every four years the IDU holds a major meeting to coincide with the Republican National Convention in the same city, at the same time and with the Republican National Committee.

    Recently (June 10, 2002) George W. Bush hosted an election strategy meeting of the IDU in the White House at which the President announced to the world of this nation’s right to carry out pre-emptive military strikes (translated, raw aggression) against Terrorists wherever they may be. The IDU gave overwhelming support to this policy.

    All these facts came from a 1979 Trilateral Commission membership list, the June 11, 2002 Toledo Blade, the May 8, 2002 Wall St. Journal and www.IDU.org.

    Yet, when the current and leading political cheerleaders of the Republican Party, namely Coulter and Horowitz, were confronted with the IDU’s existence, they chanted "conspiracy theory" and pleaded ignorance, despite saying more than they should have.

    Now for the Radio Encounters of the Third Kind:

    Anne Coulter, a bouncy and vivacious blonde, recently had been the darling on the major media talking head shows plugging her (at that time) recent best seller Slander in support of the Republican Party’s election strategy.

    Various talk show hosts have billed her as one of America’s most intelligent women and an expert on the politics of the Republican Party. Coulter’s message is about how the terrible Liberal Democrats along with the Liberal biased Media slanders conservatives, especially conservatives of the Religious Right. Her biggest criticism of these "Socialist radicals" is the liberal accusing the conservative of ’not being cerebral.’

    Ms. Coulter was interviewed on a July 19, 2002 Omaha, Nebraska AM radio talk show.

    I had the opportunity to be a phone in guest. I wanted to know what kind of response Anne Coulter would give when confronted about the Republican Party’s membership in the IDU. In the first part of the interview Anne bemoaned the fact that the Religious Right is slandered by the Liberal biased Media for belief in a higher being and tax cuts.

    Coulter also observed when media consumers have a choice they overwhelmingly choose conservative talk shows. One thing she did not explain is why the Liberal biased Media networks had her on their Liberal biased programs to speak kindly of conservatives.

    Before I got to ask my very specific question she made the claim the Liberal biased Media is 100% Socialist.

    The question: "I am a patriotic conservative. I am so glad you stated there is a liberal control of the press. My research shows in some way this is a two way street. These same liberals since 1983 have not said a word about the Republican Party’s membership of the International Democrat Union, that is promoting the same liberal agenda on a global basis and then passes it off as world conservatism. Can you enlighten me on that?"

    The answer:

    No, (emitting an uneasy laugh) I think that is your field of expertise. I don’t exactly know what you are talking about.

    The next question:

    "That is exactly what I run into. The rank and file Republican does not know the Republican Party is a member of a global Socialist organization. You have demonstrated in the first half of your interview that you are against this stuff and Gee, shouldn’t we know the Republican Party is promoting international Socialism?"

    The answer: "I, I...I don’t think so—actually—um. I mean I never understood the idea, um, um this, this um, secret organization theory, what are they doing behind our backs? They take half our money. When Clinton was president he was gunning down religious fringe groups, shipping little boys back to Cuba and I, umm, ummm, (now with her voice raising) They take half our money, wetland designation tells us what we can not do with our land, what exactly do you think they are doing secretly, (voice really tense and still raising in tone) Good God Look what they are doing right in front of us!"

    Next question:

    "That is the point I am driving at! You can ask any chairman of a state Republican Party about the Republican Party membership in an international socialist organization."

    Hurried response:

    "We’re talking about something I—ummm—don’t think exists. We’ve kind of gone off the road here. Can I have another call?"

    It was more than obvious Anne Coulter did not want to discuss the IDU.

    There are only two possible reasons for this. One of course is she really did not know about the IDU. If this is the case then it is a stretch of the imagination to consider Ms. Coulter an expert on Republican politics. The second reason is obviously she did know about the IDU and wasn’t about to enter into a public discussion about the Republican Party’s membership in an international Socialist organization.

    The plot thickens!

    A few weeks later David Horowitz was on the same radio station (August 6, 2002). Horowitz’s interview was prefaced by one of the hosts describing how a previous interview was scheduled in advance but had to be cancelled at the last minute because Mr. Horowitz had been summoned to the George W. Bush Waco Texas ranch to talk election strategy. This was done to demonstrate the importance of his book How to Defeat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas. Would Mr. Horowitz’s response be similar to Ms. Coulter’s?

    First question:

    "Hello Mr. Horowitz, how are you?" Answer:

    "Fine."

    Second question:

    "I was lucky enough to get an advanced uncorrected readers copy of How to Beat the Democrats. I do believe it is a book all Republicans should read. My question is: I understand the tactics you are trying to put across to the Republicans but, in lieu of the recent split between Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, it seems there is a mad rush of Democrats going to the center, basically through the aegis of the Democratic Leadership Council which is also a member of an international organization called The Third Way. Consequently, at the same time I started reading articles a couple of months ago, one from the Wall Street Journal for May 8, something about an organization called the International Democrat Union made up of World Conservatives, then in the early part of June there was an IDU meeting at the White House that posed these World Conservatives were right of center."

    Does the Republican membership of an international organization going to the right and vacating the center open the opportunity for the likes of Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, rated by the DLC as a moderate to capture the political center?

    Horowitz: "Well look! You don’t want to be fooled by rhetoric or labels. How solid is Joe Lieberman’s conservative credentials, when it took him ten seconds to abandon all his principals to jump into the arms of Maxine Waters when he got that nomination."

    [Author’s note: Mr. Horowitz cautions about being fooled by labels and rhetoric, because I assume they are misleading. Notice he did not acknowledge the existence of the IDU.]

    "The Democratic Party is pulled to the left by the unions, the racist NAACP leftists, and the teacher-s union. All these people are hard left. It is a left wing party. It will remain left wing until it is beaten year after year."

    [Author’s note: Horowitz then continues by painting the Democratic Party with a list of labels using his best conservative rhetoric, as urged in his book How to Beat the Democrats. Now pay close attention to the following comparison. Horowitz is still using labels and conservative rhetoric, see page 67 of How to Beat the Democrats.]

    "If you look at John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, you will not find one scintilla of difference between them. Kennedy was a hawk on defense. He was a militant anti-communist. He was for capital gains tax cut and a balanced budget. And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid in the last 40 years."

    [Author’s note: Yes, Horowitz is correct, don-t get fooled by labels or rhetoric. The key phrase from the above quotation is ’And that should tell you how far to the left American politics has slid to the left.’

    Consider that for a moment. Horowitz has hinted the Republican Party has moved to the left right along with the Democrats!]

    Question: Do you have any comments on the International Democrat Union?

    Horowitz: The Democrats would say: ’well...I...you know. I don’t know, I don’t know what the International Democrat Union is . . . an international organization? The Third Way is a deception that we used to use when we were in the left to avoid the stigma of Communism without embracing the American way. And that to bear, Hillary Clinton is a Socialist. I don’t care what they say in front of the cameras. They understand where the American people are and they are out to fool them. And Republicans have to be vicious in their attacks on the Democrats and strike first or be on the defensive.

    [Author’s note: Horowitz claims he doesn’t know what the IDU is or even if it is an international organization. He then proceeds to use labels and conservative rhetoric to lead away from talking about the IDU. Please also note Horowitz does recognize the existence of the Third Way.]

    Question: It seems the Republican Party, being a member of the International Democrat Union according to their web site, they are determining election policies in their respective member parties in their respective countries?

    [Author’s note: Pay close attention to the next response!]

    Horowitz: Thats that’s (raising his voice) way too conspiratorial. (his voice, still raising in intensity) Look! Just imagine Al Gore was president when 911 Happened! If George Bush was not in there we would not have declared war on the al-Qaeda! We would have not taken the Taliban down! And there would have been tens of thousands more Dead Americans! That’s how I determine my politics! I don’t determine them by getting on the internet and finding some international organization!

    [The Permanent Revolution is a continuous process of War, Revolution and Terror.] If you notice from the above quote Horowitz determines his politics by waging war and predicting future terror. And still Horowitz will not acknowledge or even address the existence of the IDU. Instead he yells conspiracy!]

    Statement: But I found this information in the newspapers and the Wall Street Journal!

    Horowitz (now very agitated): The United States is part of the UN. It’s a left wing organization. The US is in the UN, does that make the US left wing? The UN is always denouncing the United States, Britain and Israel. That’s their business these days.

    [Authors note: Just a few minutes ago Horowitz acknowledged a severe 40 year leftward drift in American politics.]

    Question and statement (with a slight chuckle): OK, I’m glad you brought that up! If the UN is a left wing organization, then why is the Republican Party pushing International Free Trade, which is a left wing policy? (my voice rising trying to be heard over the loud protestations of Horowitz), I can even back that up with Hamilton’s Essay #12 from The Federalist Papers.

    Horowitz (successfully drowning out my efforts): Ah Look! I encounter people like you all the time. Politics is a complex business, OK? (speed of elocution picks up), You don’t get to be morally pure on everything! Just because the US doesn’t get out of the UN doesn’t make it a left wing party.

    [Author’s note: I don’t wear brown-shirt khakis and I definitely do not have pictures of Hitler on my walls. And don’t forget Horowitz said there was no difference between Kennedy and Reagan. This is a good indication America just may be well left of the perceived American political center.]

    Horowitz (quickly changing to an apologetic and condescending tone): I know I am on a religious station. Politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal! There is a big difference between politics and religion. Religion is about getting into heaven and if you mess with the Devil you’re damned. In politics& politics is about getting into office! You make pacts with the devil all the time putting together a majority coalition to allow you to rule!

    End of interview.

    Horowitz, just like Anne Coulter, denied knowing of the International Democratic Union, but did not hesitate to label something he didn’t know about a conspiracy theory.

    Again there are only two possible reasons for this. One is Horowitz didn’t know of the IDU. But, how could a man, who had been summoned to George Bush’s presence, to discuss electoral strategy (a man claiming to have authored the Republican manual for election strategy) have not known about the June 10th, 2002 White House hosting of an IDU election strategy session that was covered by the Associated Press?

    Something is grossly wrong here. Which leads to the second reason. Horowitz does know about the IDU and does not want the rank and file Republican to know about it.

    There may be a reason for Mr. Horowitz’s ignorance of the IDU. Horowitz does know about the Permanent Revolution. This he cannot deny.

    There is a section of How to Defeat the Democrats dedicated to The Unrepentant Left. In Chapter 4, on page 199, Horowitz vents his anger at a member of the radical left. It goes like this:

    "Far from renouncing her communist and terrorist past, Boudin is part of the same radical network that fuels Linda Evans’ seditious projects and remains an integeral part of the permanent revolution both signed onto in the 1960s."

    The use of the term ’permanent revolution,’ was not some idle choice of vitriolic rhetoric to demean the radical left. Horowitz knew exactly what he was writing. One only has to turn to his 1969 epic Empire and Revolution. A series of footnotes at the bottom of pages 28, 29 and 30 reveals the alter ego of Horowitz.

    "Lenin referred to ’uninterrupted’ or ’continuous’ revolution rather than ’permanent revolution,’ which had been revived as a term by Parvus and Trotsky." (p. 28.)

    "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society." (p.29.)

    "Capitalist production according to Marx and Engels had centralized population and industry and concentrated property in a few hands. The ’necessary consequence’ of this was political centralization.

    Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff." (p. 30.)

    David Horowitz knows of the existence of the Permanent Revolution. Like any other conflict of man there are at least two sides in the struggle.

    In the case of the Permanent Revolution the combatants have been Worker Socialists (The Third Way) and Corporate Socialists (today’s International Democrat Union). In his youth Horowitz was very active and a leader of The Third Way. In his maturity Horowitz deserted his Worker Socialist brothers in Permanent Revolution and switched sides to the Corporate Socialist cause, now his new brothers in Permanent Revolution.

    Like his days in The Third Way, to couch his communism and shun his allegiance to America, Horowitz now hides his communism behind a conservative cloak of new found Americanism in the form of World Conservatism.

    But for some reason Horowitz, The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party do not want the rank and file members of the party to know the concept of compassionate conservatism comes from the International Democrat Union, just another Fabian Socialist front group helping to transform Capitalism into Communism.

    Just a few last comments. Please consider all the things Horowitz did say. He compared the perceived conservative Ronald Reagan to a 1960s very liberal Democrat and graduate of the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics, John F. Kennedy. Horowitz acknowledged a severe leftward drift in American politics. And most damning of all, in order for the Republican "Third Kind" to rule (not get elected) they must consistently "make pacts with the Devil."

    These "Third Kind" ideas are most definitely alien to Christian, Patriotic, Conservative Americans.

    It is time for the people of this Republic to acknowledge the Republican Party is just another Communist front organization of the Permanent Revolution — the dialectical evolution of Capitalism into Communism.