That same summer, he said this: "Three groups are waging a spectacularly unified propaganda war against the Israeli military, the U.S. military and the Bush administration. They are the liberal media outlets, liberals in the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. In a world with a 24/7 microscopic news cycle, one statement that is twisted, misunderstood or misrepresented can sway public opinion and political reaction more than 1,000 tanks and 10,000 bombs." Lest his point be misunderstood, he concluded the column by noting that "the liberals' propaganda machine has become the press operation of the Islamic terrorists who plot to destroy America, her military and western civilization. American liberals are fighting the war against our great nation with words instead of bullets. Left unchallenged, their words can be just as lethal."

Soon afterward, Cain took the next logical step, calling the Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination "Hezbocrats." And in a separate column he impugned the patriotism of Democrats, writing that their "attempt to send the terrorists a media-gram of when we will withdraw from Iraq makes no sense, except to claim a political victory at the expense of national security." It's a theme to which he'd return. Here, for example: "All the Democrats have proposed is surrender to the terrorists in the form of an internationally televised withdrawal date and a ridiculous piece-meal war funding bill to constrain the war fighters on the battlefield and hijack the president's authority."

It is likely that the Republican nominee will be someone who supported the Iraq war. Especially given the fact that many GOP voters now regard it as a mistake, however, is it really wise to elevate a candidate under the mistaken impression that it was retaliation for the September 11 attacks? A candidate who presumed that calls for withdrawal were motivated by putting politics ahead of national security? Someone who casts civil libertarian concerns about intelligence gathering and unconstitutional behavior as evidence of being in league with the enemy?

A man who uses phrases like "enemies from within" to describe the press and the opposition party, who dismisses civil libertarians, and who suggests a substantial number of Americans "want the terrorists to win" has no business being president of the United States. He belongs on talk radio.

Leave him to it.





Image credit: Reuters

