Fair enough, some self-identified leftists are wackos. But what exactly is the importance of that?

I could identify plenty of Democrats, liberals, and self-identified "Leftists" who do want America to win. So what exactly is Horowitz' point?

If he's distinguishing between mainstream liberals, Democratic voters, and "Leftists", where by definition anyone who is a leftist is an America-hater, then fine, such people exist, but in rather small numbers. Even at universities the number of profesors who are rooting for the U.S. to suffer "a thousand Mogadishus" is rather small.

If the insinuation is that anyone who would call themselves a Democrat or a liberal is actively rooting for the insurgents in Falluja, feels solidarity with bin-Laden, and hopes to see America destroyed, then Horowitz is as wrong as he is insulting. I guess the 500,000 people who gathered around the Charles River in Cambridge and Boston Monday night, waving flags and singing along to patriotic songs were all just putting on facade to dupe the rest of country (given Bush's percentages in Boston, the vast majority of those revelers were Democrats).

Horowitz also goes too far in lumping anyone who has disagreed with *any* aspect of Bush's policy in with the Islamo-Socialist fifth column. Does opposing the Iraq War before it started automatically mean that one now hopes the Sunni rebels in Falluja win? That's sure not the case for me, nor for the military officers I know who thought the Iraq War was a mistake (there are plenty of them), but who sure as hell are NOT rooting for their buddies to get blown up in Bagdhad today.

I don't know what Horowitz' problem is, clearly some sort of screw loose after being raised with Communist activists as parents and being one himself for the first half of his life. He's utterly unable to look at disagreement and see anything but conspiracy and treason.