Even More Doublethink from Dean

This should come as no surprise to libertarians, who already recognize that there is only a small difference between the modern-day liberals and conservatives, typified by the Democratic and Republican parties. But for the rest of the world, they may be taken aback to learn that Dean urged Clinton to take unilateral action in Bosnia.

The Dean crowd's reaction in late 2003 when Dean said he supported sending toops to Liberia was that the Iraq situation and the Liberia situation were completely different. You see, in Iraq there was no imminent danger to the USA, but in Liberia there was. No wait, it was that Liberia needed "humanitarian intervention" and Iraq did not. As if Bush Jr. only needed to justify the Iraq invasion as humanitarian, and cynicism about motivations aside, they would have supported him. (The idea that if Liberia needed intervention, half of the places in the world, including Iraq, could use some too was dismissed. Better not to have to question the group line than struggle to explain its arbitrariness.)

But as that situation cooled, at least in the US media, people lost interest and nobody made Dean give a better explanation than had already been given. Dean continued to be outspoken against Bush's unilateral attack policy, attracting favorable attention even from some libertarians. This was great for Dean, since some of his Democratic competitors had supported the invasion. Dean and his cult camp maintained that the UN should have been involved, we need consensus, unilateral unjustified precedent consensus...*

Well no so fast, buddy. The USA Today article makes it clear: Dean is not always opposed to unilateral action.

"I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," he wrote, citing reports of genocide during the Bosnian civil war. "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action."

It's not always completely unjustified, he says. Just like the claims about Liberia, the above quote from the article allows the Deanites to declare no inconsistency: St. Howard clearly wanted only the humanitarian best for Bosnia. There were reports of genocide!

Well, gang, let me clear something up: there are always reports of genocide. Just as Bush isn't going to rid the world of evil, or even terrorism, Dean isn't going to rid the world of ethnic conflict. Something else: Saddam was no angel. Ask the Kurds.

As someone who is sick to death of the hypocrisy of the Left, I am dying to know what they'll say to the latest revelation, besides what I already anticipated and answered above (if they will even bother to justify it).

The question now, besides what a bunch of leftish hypocrites will say, is how Dean will continue to present himself as a better choice than Bush? Bush's case seems much stronger now that this Dean letter is out. Dean and his team can continue to play up the domestic issues that the South doesn't care about and that Bush and his team can one-up them on anyway, but that won't work.

The Green-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party's attempt to cast the issue as peace vs. war is going to be even more difficult now with Kerry supporting the war, basically, Clark being a war criminal (albeit not a convicted one), and Dean breaking with the consensus mantra that for a couple of years now has been thumped into skulls at antiwar rallies the world over.

And the libertarians' attempt to increase individuals' power over their own lives will be as difficult as ever in the absence of any real differences being mentioned in debates, and with the question being how many more countries to throw troops at rather than how best to withdraw from them as soon as possible.

* As a libertarian, I can understand that the UN can not give a moral imprimatur to anything, but Dean and the Deanites are not listening to me.

Share this