Here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416109792287285.html

Face it; substantively, Obama didn't say anything that Bush hadn't already said, except that Obama's father was an African Muslim, and Bush's father was a Congressman, a CIA director, an Ambassador, a Vice President and then a President of the United States.

I don't oppose anything Obama said; it just wasn't different from anything Bush had said. (We have no quarrel with the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, and we will not wage war on the Muslim faith.)

To the extent that Obama is actually going to do things differently from Bush, there seems to be very little of that in fact. Obama policies are trending toward Bush policies more and more every day. That's a good thing; not a reason to criticize Obama.

So yeah, I think David Horowitz is right.

Okay, let me get this straight: David Horowitz is lecturing the world on the need for a "democratic, tolerant, inclusive way" -- and Salon sets him up as a spokesperson for (presumably serious) conservatives?

Ahem.

The same David Horowitz who has made shrill shilling for his vision of Conservatism his raison d'etre over several decades? The same one who organizes ideological campaigns against "the Left" in American Universities, who tars all stripes of non-conservatism with the same "liberal" brush and gets crowds of fanatics to engage in competitive shout downs of open dialog about American cultural, foreign, military, etc. policy?

Obviously, Horowitz has been working this corner lucratively for decades, but why does Salon have to give him a platform to pretend to be respectable? Is the rolodex that small? That you can't find conservatives of a more honest stripe? I mean, I realize they are endangered species, since what passes for conservatism has become simply an institutionalized Ponzi game for ambitious would-be ideologues. But still. Does Salon really need to help movement conservatism get respectability? By stealing some of Obama's integrity, to boot?

Get some more contacts!

>Obama Embraces Islam

>In far-ranging address to Muslim world, President Obama calls on >Israel to abandon settlements, pledges support of two-state >solution to Palestinian conflict, calls on Muslims to oppose >extremists

>• Obama Touts Muslim Roots |

>• Iran Leader: U.S. 'Deeply Hated' in Mideast

>• Chavez: I'm More Right-Wing Than 'Comrade' Obama

Admit that Obama might have done some good? Don't hold your breath, guys.

That was my first thought when I saw this article. Is it any wonder the COP is in trouble when carny barkers like David Horowitz are held up as the guiding lights of the conservative movement? Although I must give David credit: He did manage to keep a white knuckled death grip on his usual spittle-spraying lunacy in this column. Now it's back to Front Page Mag for another insightful Op/Ed about how Obama is a Muslim baby-killer and possible Satanist bent on destruction of the United States ... sheesh.

I have to take issue with the characterization of what BHO said on Iraq. Saying that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam is not saying that the war was a good idea. The world would also be better off without Mugabe, Kim Jong-il, Raul Castro, and at least a dozen others. That doesn't mean it would be worth the cost in blood, treasure and international ill will that it would take to overthrown them.

It's quite possible to say that Iraq is better off without Saddam and still to believe that the war was a bad idea and should never have happened. If it had not, we would still be dealing with Saddam but not with the horrific consequences of the war - a preferable situation in my opinion. But that's a hypothetical, and Obama is dealing with reality going forward.

Bush said that too.

He said that the Iraqis were better off without Saddam Hussein, which obviously could not have happened without the war -- a truism, which for seven years Democrats failed to concede.

Whenever conservatives use the word "obviously" or one of its many synonyms (clearly, doubtlessly, etc.), I reach for my Browning. They've usually got their hand in my pocket while trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Such is the case here--why is it "obvious" that it would have taken a war? Why is it "obvious" that we had to fight that war?

And why won't conservatives admit that we already fought that war (remember Kuwait?) and pulled back--the same people who decided that we needed to do it again (obviously!) a decade or so later.

...just because he said something Horowitz can agree with.

Horowitz is still an idiot.

...it was the exact same thing Bush said for 7 1/2 years.

I Reach For My Browning....

He said that the Iraqis were better off without Saddam Hussein, which obviously could not have happened without the war -- a truism, which for seven years Democrats failed to concede.

Whenever conservatives use the word "obviously" or one of its many synonyms (clearly, doubtlessly, etc.), I reach for my Browning. They've usually got their hand in my pocket while trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Such is the case here--why is it "obvious" that it would have taken a war? Why is it "obvious" that we had to fight that war?

And why won't conservatives admit that we already fought that war (remember Kuwait?) and pulled back--the same people who decided that we needed to do it again (obviously!) a decade or so later.

-- Dr. Zachary Smith

Danger, Will Robinson!

It's good to see that David Horowitz, perhaps our greatest warrior in the endless struggle to rid our universities of free thinkers, really gets it.

He understands, better than most, that Obama is actually one of his own.

And thank you Salon, for treating us to the insights of this formidable opponent of all that is wrong with the invasion and destruction of sovereign nations that pose no real danger to us.

Keep up the good fight, David! As far as I'm concerned, you've already won!

PS: A belated thank you Mr. Horowitz, for the arresting images of Vietnamese Napalm victims, that you ran in Ramparts way back when you were not so cool with the senseless murder of innocents. I'll be damned, but I still can't seem get those photographs out of my head (after forty long years)! Those horrific images are still working on me, in precisely the way that you had intended.

You rule, dude.