Howard Dean: patriot or anti-American

James Henry
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 7 July 2003

Howard Dean, the leftwing Democrat who wants to be president, is demanding that Bush send troops to the African country of Liberia and rid it of it dictator Charles Taylor . Mind you, this is the same Dean who opposed the war against Saddam's evil regime and who has basically accused the president of lying.

Of course, if Taylor were to suddenly become viciously anti-American and declare Bush an illegitimate president who is willing to wage war against a poor country that poses no threat to the US, would the very 'progressive' Mr Dean change his views, perhaps even accuse Bush of lying: maybe even join demonstrations defending Liberia's sovereignty and the Taylor dictatorship.

Sarcasm aside, Dean is no hypocrite. No sireeee. He assures us that "The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite" to what prevailed in Iraq because in Liberia "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe." Actually I believe that Dean is sincere in his stated belief, which demonstrates just how contemptible liberals are. Anyhow, hypocrisy pays homage to virtue, something that liberals never do.

Saddam installs a terrorist regime, tortures and murders several hundred thousand Iraqi citizens, gases, bombs and machine guns Kurds, virtually exterminates the Marsh Arabs, trains and sponsors international terrorists, invades and terrorises neighbouring countries, and Dean argues that Saddam poses no threat to anyone and that there is no "serious human catastrophe" in Iraq. How does he do it?

Two and a half years ago I wrote that with respect to liberals and national security that "there is a very definite pattern. Every policy these left-wing Senators and Congressmen (I will now refer to liberals as left-wing) strenuously opposed was designed to promote American interests. Every military policy they support is not only unrelated to American interests they actually endanger them by unnecessarily making enemies."

This is the despicable point that Dean has now raised. He and his fellow Leninist hardcore Democrats hate the war against Saddam because they believe it promoted US interests. This is their litmus test for condemning any foreign policy: will it benefit the US? That US interests in Iraq also coincided with the interests of the Iraqi people and civilised values is something that cuts no ice with these bitter ideologues. That is why the Deans were prepared to allow the sadistic Saddam to remain in power while still demanding that the US send troops to Liberia. And this is why most of the same Democrats support the use of US troops in places like Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia, etc.

So where did the Howard Deans, the Kucinchs and Tom Haydens come from? If we examine the 1972 George McGovern presidential campaign we find that it provided the means by which those who are deeply hostile to American values and contemptuous of its history and traditions were able to worm their way into mainstream politics. It is now their ideological values that dominate the Democratic Party whose only genuine resemblance to the party of Truman and Jack Kennedy is in name only.

These are the people who supported Hanoi's conquest of South Vietnam and who broke a solemn pledge to supply Saigon with the means to protect itself against communist aggression. These are same liberals whose political treachery made Pol Pot's murderous regime possible. The very same people who opposed the Reagan military build up that finally broke the back of the Soviet Empire.

And did they not also condemn operation Desert Storm? Didn't these very people oppose every initiative and action that curtailed Soviet expansion? Aren't these the people who supported the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista's and still rationalise Castro's murderous drug-running regime? But their loathing of the US military does not prevent them from being prepared to callously put at risk the lives of American troops in places that do not in anyway serve American interests. Why?

Perhaps all of this is confusing some readers. Maybe they will put it down to left-wing inconsistency or just plain stupidity. Although their policies are stupid they are still consistent in that they are meant to do harm to the US. That is why they broke a solemn agreement with Saigon, because it was in the interest of America and its allies to prevent a communist victory. On the other hand, these same anti-American ideologues strongly support and defend treaties that violate US sovereignty and endanger national security. One graphic example is their relentless opposition to a national missile defence system.

Just as the leftwing likes of Tom Hayden callously betrayed, without a shred of remorse, the hapless South Vietnamese people to the vicious ideological warlords of the totalitarian North Dean, and his fellow travellers in Hollywood, the media and academia, was prepared to allow the Iraqi people to suffer under Saddam's jackboot in order to fuel satisfy his moral vanity and loathing of America.

Is this the kind of man Americans want as president? What is more, could America survive such a presidency?