The American Spectator

Angel| 3.26.09 @ 10:24PM

Did he happen to give a little hint as to where this little attack will occur? Just askin'.

CH| 3.26.09 @ 10:30PM

Great news; just what I wanted to hear. I already knew it though, because liberals are just so damn stupid.

Die Rechte Ecke| 3.26.09 @ 11:01PM

We all know this. It's like going to church - we all know why we're there, we just wish the sinners would come on in so we could forgive them and get some God into their life.
Too bad, progressives and their kind are aetheist.
I think when they meet their maker, they should make sure they explain to him that he doesn't exist.
Wonder how that'll work out?

Red Phillips| 3.26.09 @ 11:02PM

This is the kind of absurd fear mongering that gives interventionist "conservatives" a bad name. The interventionists are getting desperate. They know that non-interventionism is on the rise on the right and they know the "War on Terror" has fallen off the radar screen. What exactly does Horowitz propose that we should be doing to prevent this pending attack? Fight a little harder in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe invade Syria and Iran?

Here is what would make us safer. Quit meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, bring our troops home, declare neutrality on the Israel/Palestine issue, and restrict immigration. There problem solved and you don’t even have to bomb anybody.

Hopefully Young Americans for Liberty will invite Ron Paul to campus to counter this nonsense.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 11:25PM

Red, do you think that Obummer has made us safe?

Timetripper| 3.26.09 @ 11:27PM

Red Phillips, you have definitely been at the koolaid.
The enemies of North America have always been our enemies simply because we are christians. (Well, except for those that deny it)
The only thing foreign policy did was add to the impetus of their unholy jihad against the great satan and the rest of us infidels.
So, you want to be neutral on Israel? Hope you have the stomach for what Iran intends to do there without American intervention. (And they will do it) but then again, you probably never served with those fine people who protect your right to disrespect them.
Enjoy your peace while you can. I have no doubt that there will be another day of infamy as FDR called it.

Frosty| 3.26.09 @ 11:35PM

Red, we are in the Middle East right now--so we are at risk, right? You don't make sense.

danny| 3.27.09 @ 12:04AM

OBAMA SOLUTION.
can't we all just get along?

Red Phillips| 3.27.09 @ 12:33AM

"Red, we are in the Middle East right now--so we are at risk, right?"

Yes those troops are. That is why we should get out. (Horowitz was predicting an attack on American soil though.)

"The enemies of North America have always been our enemies simply because we are Christians."

Which is perhaps a good reason not to be inviting large numbers of them into the West as immigrant you think? Our "infidelity" is part of the equation but is not alone a sufficient explanation. OBL stated explicitly why they attacked us. Because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and because we are seen as overly friendly to Israel. Was he just kidding around? Hiding his real motives? To what end?

"Hope you have the stomach for what Iran intends to do there without American intervention."

This is what is so frustrating. Fear mongering like that is just trotted out as if certain fact. Would you please work that out for me? Preferably a plausible scenario with some detail. What is Iran going to do to nuclear Israel?

"you probably never served with those fine people who protect your right to disrespect them."

OH REALLY! You shouldn't have gone there because that would surprise the patients I treated when I was in the USAF. Perhaps it is because I have seen the sequelae of war (particularly the psychological trauma and the broken families) that I don't treat it cavalierly. Unlike the keyboard warrior neocons thumping their chest and sending other people’s sons/daughters and husbands/wives and fathers/mothers off to fight.

Red Phillips| 3.27.09 @ 12:53AM

BTW, are you suggesting that being a non-interventionist means I'm disrespecting the troops? Funny. I would have thought that not wanting to send them half way around the globe in the service of the Jacobin fantasies of the neocons would be respectful. I would have thought it would be respectful to actually have them do what they are constitutionally authorized to do which is to protect the good ol' US of A. Sadly, the troops in Iraq are not protecting my rights to anything because Saddam and Iraq never threatened my rights. What was Saddam going to do? Roll the Iraq Navy into New York Harbor? Fly his transatlantic capable Air Force over here and bomb Charleston? Or perhaps launch an ICBM at Chicago?

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 1:02AM

Red, so you're saying there is NO terroist threat to us in the U.S., right? Explain please.

Jeremiah| 3.27.09 @ 1:59AM

Wow...that MA in English literature out there at Berkeley prepared Horowitz to know the chances of a terrorist attack on the US?

I wish he'd been working for Bush in the first few months of his presidency.

glacialhills| 3.27.09 @ 2:08AM

Red, you are truly naive, But that is what makes this country so great. Folks like you can say whatever you want and are protected by our founding documents to do so.God love ya!

All The ex leader of Iraq would have had to do was build/buy/find a bomb, sell it to some faction next door in one of the usa loving countries, they ship it here directly, or to a 3rd party western nation say Mexico in a shipping container, They bribe some Mexican custom officials to look the other way and get some lackey to relabel the cargo ...oh I dont know, say mexican pinatas and it arrives from Guadalajara to the port city of choice in the USA with little inspection of the many thousands of others arriving from a relatively friendly nation and .....

PRESTO CHANGO.... big hole where the city used to be. (that scenario is still one of the real possibilities that we get to look forward to, by the way).
Why Iraq, at least we got rid of one satanic sob that had the means and that made clear he would do it if he could. I know its scary to think about...but you keep those rose colored glasses on. Now that Barrack is here, there is no danger of that happening anymore ,everybody loves us again.

Red Phillips| 3.27.09 @ 7:18AM

"Red, so you're saying there is NO terroist threat to us in the U.S., right? Explain please."

Ruth, of course there is. From stateless terrorists. Fighting wars against Nation States does not help deter stateless terrorists . It makes the situation worse. We need to get out of there and restrict immigration. Would 9/11 have happened if the terrorist weren't in the country? Well there you go, immigration control. Even Horowitz supports immigration control as one method.

What is your plan? What aggressive act do you propose that would make us safer?

Terry| 3.27.09 @ 7:37AM

One must wonder why Red acted as a doctor to soldiers when he had so little regard for their mission. Staying home and pretending the world will forgive and forget us is a sweet little story. It isn't reality, but why be concerned with that? BHO has similar ideas, which is why he writes cute little notes to the Russian president and goes on TV to wish the Iranian government a Happy New Year! Mr. Horowitz may be a bit on the paranoid side, but I'd rather be prepared.

Texan| 3.27.09 @ 9:00AM

If you look at the big picture, Mr. Horowitz may be correct. Obama is snubbing our allies, cozying up to the countrys that want us to fail, trashing our economy, intentionally weakening our economy and military. Our president can put two words together without the aid of the teleprompter. Our sec of state is a political hack who got the job because of her last name. Also the name of another weak sister president. The bad guys around the world see this as weakness. To the rest of the world, appearances mean everything. THIS IS NOT NEW! The bad guys have acted against us before when they perceived weakness. Iran acted when Jimmy Carter was pres. The islamic terrorrists acted multiple times with Bill Clinton was pres. The really misunderestimated G. Bush however. But here we are again with another weak sister pres and do you think the bad guys are just going to do nothing? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I really don't want to repeat our past from a weak president.

Johnny Maudlin| 3.27.09 @ 9:20AM

Gee, Horowitz, could you have found a broader brush? Leftists? What, exactly, is a "leftist"? Anyone? Because if I'm going to end up swinging from a lamp post, I'd kinda like to know why...

CS Lewis| 3.27.09 @ 9:57AM

Every thought of man, whether for evil or good can be brought to completion if there is the will or the way. We've seen it from times beginning.
The evil doers today have the will and the money and the way - terrorists - to do so.
Glacialhills has a point about the way. It's interesting the writers on "24" had the same thoughts and wrote it into their script for "24" this season.
This idea that if we just leave them alone they'll be nice to us ignores the history of mankind. Horowitz is not the only person warning we are going to get hit again and it will be a miracle if it doesn't happen. Miracles come from God not man and my prayer is that God will take mercy on us.
Do I hear any Amens?

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 11:07AM

Red, you said that 'of course' there's a terroist threat to us; then why do you call Horowitz's similar claims 'absurd fear mongering'? I'm just trying to understand you, without calling you names. What is absurd is that you assume that I love agression and bellicose military operations. You'd get your point across better if you weren't so friggin' PO'd. We aren't your war-mongering enemies, Red--we aren't your enemies at all.

Red Phillips| 3.27.09 @ 12:27PM

Ruth it would be silly to say there is no threat. There is. But when Horowitz says there is a 100% chance of a terrorist event on American soil he is ginning up fear in the service of his agenda, which I assume means an essentially permanent military presence in Iraq and an attack on Iran.

What frustrates me is that when debating interventionists all you usually get is mindless boilerplate. It is a default response. It is a reflex. There are potential enemies and something bellicose must be done or else we’ll all die. But when asked for specific scenarios or specific responses that would actually make us safer there is usually silence. What action do people propose that would make us safer? That would improve our position?

So CS Lewis for example, (BTW, if C.S. Lewis was alive today he would probably be a paleocon.) what is your grand plan? Who should we threaten? Who should we bomb? Who should we invade?

Then ask if your plan squares with Christian Just War Theory. Glacialhills up there has us bombing Iraq because Saddam MIGHT have gotten WMDs and then MIGHT have used them. So let’s bomb and invade a country, kill untold numbers of their citizens, kill and main thousands of ours, bust up marriages due to repeated deployments, etc. just to be on the safe side. Listen to yourselves. That is preventative war. It is not even remotely justified by Just War principles. As is the we have to bomb Iran because they might get a nuke then they might give it to a third party who might use it. But no one in the foreign policy community outside the Chicken Little neocons and their minions in the conservative movement who have never met a fear they didn’t monger believes that is even remotely plausible. Read the link.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/03/23/iran-2/

jasperjava| 3.27.09 @ 2:42PM

Thanks to Red for answering irrational fears with clear-minded reason.

The fear that states would give non-state actors like terrorists a nuclear weapon is far-fetched. Terrorists are notoriously unreliable. Reagan armed and trained the Afghan mujaheddin, and yet they ended up becoming al Qaeda and the Taliban. You don't give such weapons to potential enemies (though Reagan armed BOTH Iran and Iraq, and supported terrorists in Central America).

I'm not a non-interventionist, because I think the United States can accomplish a lot of good in the world, but the objectives must be clear and well-thought-out. The Iraq war failed that test.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 4:11PM

That's all I asked for, Red. Conservatives aren't monolithic--you should know that. Don't stereotype me and I won't stereotype you, deal?

Right Wing Blows| 3.27.09 @ 6:03PM

Well that's such a stunning revelation... Did he predict we'd get attacked under Bush? Why doesn't that candy ass put on a uniform and shut his freakin trap.

JHarp| 3.27.09 @ 6:31PM

Horowitz is just afraid that candy ass Obama will get us attacked like candy ass Clinton did. Both Liberals, you know? Not too smart are you, Blows? Dumb libturd.

Jeremiah| 3.27.09 @ 7:22PM

Ben Stein went to UC Santa Cruz. Hippies, freaks and stoners abound there. Yucko! Gorgeous campus, though.

Jim| 3.27.09 @ 8:25PM

What does he know? I bet they could find out at Guantanamo Bay. Let's get him there fast and go all Jack Bauer on his behind.

JHarp| 3.27.09 @ 8:38PM

Oh no!!!!!! That would be TORTURE!!! And we all know TORTURE never works, right? Moron.

Basil Plumley| 3.27.09 @ 11:27PM

@ jasperjava

Good Lord, what are you talking about? You are utterly clueless about the Reagan Years and have allowed your premises to be dictated by lies, half truths, and calumny.

You said-Reagan armed and trained the Afghan mujaheddin, and yet they ended up becoming al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That is not correct. You have to understand that there were two types of fighters in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets: Afghans and Arabs.
You also have to understand that the CIA was supporting one Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and his "Hezbi" Mujahaddin. In his book Holy War, Inc., CNN's terrorism analyst Peter Bergen stated that of the $1 billion in US aid to the Mujahaddin, at least "$600 million" went to Hekmatyar.

Hekmatyar army was not doing much fighting against the Soviets and what little they were doing went quite badly. The Jamiat Mujahaddin did the majority of the fighting and actually won the war once they got the Stingers.
Once the Soviet Hinds were taken out, the Afghans started taking control of the ground war.

It is beyond simplistic to say that the Mujahaddin became Al Qaeda and Taliban. Al Qaeda is primarily Arabs and not exceptional fighters. The Taliban were just part of the Mujahaddin. The "Northern Alliance" was anti-Taliban and many of its members were from the Mujahaddin.

I challenge you to provide evidence that Reagan supplied Iraq with arms. I strongly recommend you read up about BCCI. Iraq received credits from BCCI to purchase foodstuffs, medicine, and other non-weapons from this country. It is an old canard the Left throws out to show they think they are intelligent.
BCCI was corrupt to its core but that was not Reagan. In fact two principals of BCCI were indicted. One of them was/is married to Wonder Woman and the other was a former DOD under Johnson. Do you want to play Guess The Political Party?

...... supported terrorists in Central America? Praytell, who? Man, you folks on the Left are really out there.

I may post more later. I do recommend that you get some true facts before you pontificate about this subject.

As for you Red, I'll just agree with the poster who called you naive. There are a lot of bad actors out there and to think that our international presence is causing the terrorism is a willful suspension of disbelief.

chuck| 3.27.09 @ 11:46PM

horowitz may be smoking some weird stuff, but the fact remains that there are a great many oeiole (unfotunately Americans among them) that want to see our democracy fail. his predictions are accurate. it may not be on the scale of the WTC 9/11 incident, but it will happen. it will take as much before we Americans realize that we are losing our country.

Daohne| 3.28.09 @ 1:52AM

I disagree, Chuck. Unfortunately. I think the next attack is gonna make 9/11 look like a tea party. Sadly enough.

Glacialhills| 3.28.09 @ 4:09AM

Does anyone have all the answers Red? No of course not. Will mistakes be made concerning where and when we should intervene and strike first...of course. But taking on Iraq was a no brainer, no matter how unpopular it has become now to say so.

1. Saddam had show that he could and would attack and destroy other countries without provocation.(has Iran or North Korea done that yet? nope not yet)

2. He showed he had no compunction in using WMD's, he used nerve gas on his own people and against Iran during the iran- iraq war and had an active bio and nuclear procurement program in the 90's.(N. Korea is testing a long range rocket as I write this and Iran is developing nukes...but neither have used them in aggression...again, not yet)

3. Saddam was never in compliance in the cease fire resolutions after the first gulf war and shot at and attacked his own people and at us every chance he got.(when we have 19 UN resolutions that Iran or N. Korea have broken I think they would be in Iraq's same boat.)

4. Saddam proclaimed and postured that he had wmd's and would use them against us, Israel, and other countries in the middle east.(both Iran and N. Korea are threatening this...while only we and a handful of our "ALLIES" substantially react to them while all others(france, germany, russia ect. take your attitude)

So we found out that Saddam had fooled us and the rest of the world concerning how capable he was...what was the alternative to stopping him?...I will tell you, you take lightly when some weird group calling themselves al qaeda bombs a building in new york in 1993 and the president says we will treat this as a criminal matter and ignores what some crack pot named Bin ladin says what he wants to do to us.

RESULT: 9/11

So you think we shouldn't have acted earlier in Afghanistan to eliminate that threat when it first started to emerge and we had to wait till they had bombed buildings all over the world? We should only act when they kill 3000 or more in a single attack? When would you say its time to take preemptive action against a group or country that harbors them? ....Never? Only if they really, REALLY mean it? When would that be? How do we know when they really, REALLY mean it, and when they are just posturing as Saddam was? In this age of rogue nations and loose fissionable material,bio and chemical agents, being sold to the highest bidder I say If you are threatening others and we have solid and actionable intel that you are planning to or have attacked others and are threatening others again, we need to act to stop you....and not wait till you carry that threat out.
Its a very quaint notion you have that if we only leave the rest of the world to its devices everyone will get along and no one will want to attack us again. That was the same thinking that allowed Germany to take over europe not once but twice. We buried our heads in the sand and waited till it was almost to late to stop that threat. Are you wanting us to keep repeating those same mistakes and until we are attacked, let evil run rampant until, and only until, it rears its ugly head in our direction? Well, I for one, am fed up with that mentality and If some country, or group, or country is harboring or sponsoring said group is threatening us or our allies or interests and is credible I say why wait?
Did you notice what Libya did when we actually stood up to the bullies in the middle east? They voluntarily gave up there weapons program.
You see, just because you have a big stick, doesn't mean you always need to use it. But you have to be credible,firm, and show that you will use that big stick if needs be. That alone, does more for peace than 1000 empty threats.

In the end, our nation is no longer protected by the oceans that surround us. If our troops were pulled back from all over the world as you suggest, we would find that would just be letting our enemies have a free pass to bring their hate to our very shores instead of being buffered by our troops abroad. I think our brave heroes would tell you they would rather be fighting our enemies over there than in their family and neighbors back yards.

Basil Plumley| 3.28.09 @ 9:53AM

@ Glacialhills

Not bad, not bad at all.

I would also posit that Iraq was unstable. Saddam had control but it was centralized. History has shown the greater the government centralization, the greater the instability. For examples, see the Soviet Union, Rome, and present day Iran. I would possibly include China.

With Iraq being unstable and the perception that they possessed WMDs, what would have been the result if Iraq's instability caused these WMDs to fall into the wrong hands.
I believe Duelfer or Kay noted this in their reports.

I am very troubled with Obama going back to the Clinton philosophy of treating Terrorism as a criminal matter. Lawyers may be great warriors in tha courtroom but they are outmatched in the battlefield. Naive, indeed.

ruth| 3.28.09 @ 1:46PM

"Lawyers may be great warriors in the courtroom...." Legal eagles as courtroom warriors--interesting take on attorneys. Hmmmm...someone must be a lawyer. LOL.

jah| 2.8.10 @ 3:41PM

this guy is an idiot conservative, dont mind what hes saying