A very perturbed David responds to questions on his behavior
I woke up this morning to Diana West’s Facebook post about David Horowitz at the Heritage Foundation promoting his newest book, The Black Book of the American Left: The Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz
The first was Dr. Sebastian Gorka of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:
If you have issues with Diana West, technical expertise, than take her to task on that, but ad hominem attacks that destroy the unity of our camp will not make us stronger in 2016. So I’m very curios of the motivation of that.
After all of David’s verbiage in defense of himself and harsh criticism of Diana’s book, his parting shot before he took the next question, shown the light upon the shallowness of his argumentation in his 4 minute rewrite of the history surrounding his controversial actions regarding Diana and American Betrayal:
David:“I see it as a threat to everything that I’ve done, and that Radosh has done, and that Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes and all of the conservatives who have dredged up the information from the archives about Communist influence.”
[…]
”I regret, ya know, people kept saying ‘stop this fratricide’ so I stopped writing, Diana keeps publishing stuff. She’s got a whole book, it’s 22 000 words, it’s called ‘Book Burners’. That’s me and Radosh, for one bad review! Come on!”
I agree with the Baron over at GOV, that his one quip belays the fears that he and his cadre of ‘fellow travelers’ (one of David’s favorite lines) have in answering anything remotely relating to the upsetting of the carefully laden apple cart that they’ve set up over the years. That being, there wasn’t a de facto deeper infiltration of the US government under St.Roosevelt.
Here Horowitz plays his hand, he knows that many have not followed the events surrounding his unprecedented removal of a review of an author’s work, and the allowing of a harsh critic (Radosh) to slander her and the book in an op-ed (it was no review, Radosh hadn’t read the book, one of the many dead giveaways was his mixing up Diana’s book with another work by a different author) that offered nothing in the way of a scholarly review, but of a thorough trashing of her person. That is why Diana responded in the way she did, as anyone else would, including his kingship, David Horowitz. Come on!
Peter Huessy, an editor for Family Security Matters had this to say:’
Hello David, for the record, my name is Peter Huessy, Diana mentions my grandfather twice in her book, his name was Helmuth von Multke, leader of the July killing attempt of Hitler, he was arrested prior to that in January, and tortured and executed. When he was in Turkey and met with American military forces, he said, the whole idea was to go through the Balkans and to Normandy, to do both, which would pincer the Nazis but would get, as he said to George Kennon before the war, if the Russians get to Berlin before ‘you do’, they will own all of Eastern Europe, and he said that is what you never want to see happen. Just for the record, I think just to be fair.
and M. Stanton Evans:
David I agree with almost everything you said in your speech, until you started in on Diana West’s book, which was not a part of your speech, it was an answer to Sebation’s question.Let me just say this, I have studied these documents very carefully. I think her analysis of what happened in World War II under Roosevelt is pretty darned accurate. and there is not time to expand on it here, but let me pick up one thing that I want to punctuate with then ask you a question if I may.
You mention the case of Harry Hopkins. I got embroiled in a controversy over this myself and I won’t go into the details. The controversy over Harry Hopkins is not precipitated by Diana West, all she was doing was citing the work of Herbert Romerstein who was an absolute expert on these matters, and he was basing his comments on what Akmerov who was living illegally in the United States said in a speech reported by Oleg Gordievsky who Herb knew.
Who said that during World war II, Hopkins was, the principle Soviet agent in the American government. Whether right or wrong, Herb thought it was right, and said it was conclusive, Diana simply cited that. Secondly my question is based on this. You mentioned in numerical factors of that there were only five hundred, but think that there were more than that, that there were five hundred Soviet agents and communist fellow travelers in the government verses tens of thousands of employees. That is not the issue.
The issue is where were they situated (David: that’s right). And I wrote a piece in response to you and Ron that I think that you may have seen, in defense of Diana West, and I went into the question of who the agents were and where they were located. Hiss in the State Department, the principle American operative who knew what he was doing at Yalta, which is a chapter in a book that Herb and I did a year ago. Walton Curry in the White House, Harry Dexter White at the Treasury, orchestrating all kinds of policies and initiatives to aid the Soviet Union and the records show that very clearly.
Did you read my rebuttal and if so, please tell me what you thought about it?
Here Horowitz completely sidesteps Evans’ basic question, did you read my rebuttal? That, ladies and gentlemen, shows the reluctance by Horowitz, Radosh and others, to properly debate the issues raised by Diana and Evans (and others), using scholarship alone to counterpoint, instead of ad hominem attacks against an author for daring to raise the facts at all. David showed his hand in his Q&A, and he didn’t do his standing any favors at all. Check out Diana’s book The Rebuttal, the entire controversy is there in full.
Here’s the video:
