I’m still wondering when the NY Times will admit in its masthead that it’s the official newspaper of the Democratic party. Anyway, today’s partisan attack is a scathing denunciation of Donald Rumsfeld. It wouldn’t be notable in any way — just another day in the NY Times’ party warfare — were it not for the funny charge the Times hurls at Rumsfeld. It claims that he’s using language that hasn’t been used about war since Vietnam. While I didn’t laugh out loud, I certainly snickered mightily in light of the fact that the NY Times, since the Iraq War began has been framing it in terms of the Vietnam War, and using Vietnam as its template for claiming the war a failure since its inception.
By the way, I’m still reading (and enjoying) David Horowitz’s autobiography, Radical Son. He reminds us that the 1960s anti-War movement was founded and conducted by hard core American communists, taking directions from Moscow. Their sole goal was to see America lose in order to establish Moscow’s primacy.
I find it almost bizarre reading Horowitz’s book — and this for a singular reason. I’ve been a long time fan of Helen MacInnes’ Cold War thrillers, but always thought she was a bit over the top in painting (a) the dark anti-American communist underbelly in America and (b) the complete control Moscow had over those America Lasters. Weirdly, it turns out that she was absolutely, accurately correct.