Hezbolleftists
While loony leftists persist in bashing President George W. Bush on every topic, including the War on Terrorism, more pragmatic liberals are making sure their side can claim a first-class seat on the anti-terrorism express.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) lately has been cultivating hawk feathers on her left and farther-left wings.
And now a new book titled Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists on American Soil (Presidio Press/Ballantine Books, 2005) centers on the narrow story of a Hezbollah cell that operated in the U.S. prior to 9/11 but also adds a broader view of the continuing risk to America and the world from this Shiite Iran-aligned-and-backed terrorist organization whose name translates as "The Party of God."
Yes, Hezbollah is the group that the French President this week refused to label terrorist.
The authors of Lightning Out of Lebanon are Tom Diaz, who until 1997 "was the lead Democratic counsel on counterterrorism issues," and Barbara Newman, a documentarian who has been a correspondent for National Public Radio (NPR) and hosted its show All Things Considered.
The fact that liberals such as these are toning and promoting their book as an anti-Hezbollah and pro-counterterrorism tract is one more sign that President Bush is winning the war not only against anti-American foreign terrorists but also the ideological struggle against the anti-American homegrown radical left (let's call them Hezbolleftists) from which honorable and smart Democrats and other liberals are distancing themselves.
As David Horowitz documents in his current best-seller Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery Publishing, 2004), Islamist terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and fanatical America-hating leftists are far more intertwined than the establishment media wants you to know. The struggles against both, although fought by different means, are really one conflict being fought to preserve liberty and civilization.
Lightning Out of Lebanon carries a dust jacket endorsement by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of the last of the old-fashioned patriotic Democrats. History may show that he has been the saving remnant of his party.
4 Comments:
For the record Senator Clinton has supported the war since the beginning. She was criticized on the right some time ago for calling for more troops, but that critique was also made in conservative places such as the Weekly Standard. A little less than a year ago the number of tropps committed did increase so it seems there was some validity to the criticism.
"Hezbolleftists"
Good description!
As far as the Senator from NewYork goes...she "politicized" her stance from the outset. The fact that she's 'supported' the war from the beginning does not begin to wipe out the blatantly anti-military sentiment that she has obviously held near and dear for a very long time.
As liberals attempt to distance themselves from the anti-war crowd and reshape their public image as "defense hawks", its going to be important to keep track of these liberal "hawks" and thier actions to determine whether their actions match thier words. I'd be glad to see a genuine movement on the left towards taking the defense of the nation seriously, but they need to match their rhetoric with their political actions. How they vote on defense and intelligence bills, as well as what bills they support, oppose, or sponsor, will need to be kept track of in order to better inform the American public so that they may discern which liberal "hawks" are actually hawks, and which are actually doves in the guise of hawks.
Personally I think the rhetoric so far is just that. If some liberals have truly come to realize that national defense is an important issue to the American public, and are willing to back up their rhetoric with actions, then I'll be the first to give them their due. But until I see consistent action on the part of liberals to be willing to at least defend the nation, regardless of thier domestic agendas, I'll continue to have my doubts about any "hawkish" rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of liberals, be they democratic or repubican.
Its certainly interesting to see the left shift in their rhetoric after Kerry lost in '04. He droned on and on about how he was going to defend the nation if he became president, but apparently enough people actually pay attention to senate voting records to be able to distinguish between rhetoric and action. We'll see in the next few years whether these new "hawkish" democrats match action to verbiage.
As liberals attempt to distance themselves from the anti-war crowd and reshape their public image as "defense hawks", its going to be important to keep track of these liberal "hawks" and thier actions to determine whether their actions match thier words. I'd be glad to see a genuine movement on the left towards taking the defense of the nation seriously, but they need to match their rhetoric with their political actions. How they vote on defense and intelligence bills, as well as what bills they support, oppose, or sponsor, will need to be kept track of in order to better inform the American public so that they may discern which liberal "hawks" are actually hawks, and which are actually doves in the guise of hawks.
Personally I think the rhetoric so far is just that. If some liberals have truly come to realize that national defense is an important issue to the American public, and are willing to back up their rhetoric with actions, then I'll be the first to give them their due. But until I see consistent action on the part of liberals to be willing to at least defend the nation, regardless of thier domestic agendas, I'll continue to have my doubts about any "hawkish" rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of liberals, be they democratic or repubican.
Its certainly interesting to see the left shift in their rhetoric after Kerry lost in '04. He droned on and on about how he was going to defend the nation if he became president, but apparently enough people actually pay attention to senate voting records to be able to distinguish between rhetoric and action. We'll see in the next few years whether these new "hawkish" democrats match action to verbiage.
Post a Comment
<< Home