Howard Dean, Democrats

The Mad Hatter and the Democrats

Question: What’s the worst thing that can happen to America? Well if you’re a Democrat like Howard Dean, the worst thing that can happen to America is that it wins a war. At least that’s the impression one is left with when listening to Dean’s defeatist drivel. For many years now it seems that the only time Democrats are happy is when things are going badly for America, especially under a government containing a majority of Republicans.

This week Dean stated during a radio interview that the "idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is plain wrong." In denouncing America’s involvement in Iraq Dean said, "I’ve seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam."

Dean called for a "strategic redeployment" of troops out of Iraq over a 2-year period. I think that the words "strategic redeployment" is Democrat speak for surrender. While Dean wasn’t specific about exactly where he would redeploy the troops currently stationed in Iraq, he does believe that the Democrats would be better at national defense than the Republicans. During a John Wayne moment, Dean agreed, "we do need a strong defense policy. We need to make it clear that Democrats will stand up for America and pull the trigger in defense of America."

I guess Dean’s idea of standing up for America entails surrendering.

The tune Dean is currently rehearsing is a lot different from the tune he sang in April of this year, when he said, "We’re there and we can’t get out" in reference to Iraq. It also appears that the Democratic Party who had the majority of its members in Congress vote in favor of invading Iraq two years ago and who recently voted in support of a continued occupation is now a different Democratic Party.

How can people take someone like Dean seriously when he makes his bizarre proclamations? Bizarre? Try this on for size: "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before." Huh? Did Dean fall on his head or was he in rehab on September 11, 2001? In fact, Dean must have heard something about 9/11 because he accuses President Bush of withholding proof that there was no connection between the Al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein.

I’m unaware that such proof exists and I think if it does and Mr. Dean has access to it, he should share it with the rest of us. To the best of my knowledge there is proof to the contrary, which includes the training ground at Salman Pak, where highjackers were perfecting their craft and a memo sent to Saddam Hussein on July 1, 2001 by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the head of Saddam’s intelligence service. According to a story published in Britain’s Telegraph on December 14, 2003 Mohammad Atta was trained in Iraq. Here’s what the Telegraph wrote:

"The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day ‘work programme’ Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta ‘displayed extraordinary effort’ and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be ‘responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy’."

The Telegraph isn’t exactly in favor of the Iraq war, and I doubt if Bush’s neo-cons managed to plant that story by paying someone off. Yet Dean and his legions of losers keep bleating the ovine mantra that Bush lied.

I’m having a difficult time understanding how the Democrats manage to see everything either through the Vietnam window or the Watergate window. It is possible that there are only two realities for the Democrats, one being Vietnam and the other Watergate, as both these seem to coincide with a time when the Democrats were a force to be reckoned with? It’s as if the Democratic Party is slowly morphing into Alice in Wonderland’s tea Party. Question is, which better describes Howard Dean, the Mad Hatter or the March Hare? Maybe it all depends which window he happens to be looking through.