Most pundits believed the statement didn't help Massachusetts Senator John Kerry among those whose preference really counted.

However, Dodd’s unfortunate comment is the most recent attack against the right of the American people to exercise an independent foreign policy through the actions of their elected representatives. The absurd statement goes well beyond the national debate on the merits of our intervention in Iraq or even the justification for the war on terror. Such argument challenges the basic right of the US to engage in the kind of business entitled to any sovereign nation.

By now the American public widely recognizes the fact that the United Nations Organization --a debating group of states mostly with dubious degrees of legitimacy-- has turned into a podium for anti-American propaganda.

It is also obvious that in recent years the center of gravity of the American left has moved dramatically from the “old-fashioned liberalism” of yesteryears toward the present wild-eyed radicalism. Millionaire entrepreneurs of a certain political stripe have openly fueled the leftward trend with huge contributions to the radical wing of the Democratic Party.

That is why presidential hopeful Dodd --a very long shot for the White House-- openly panders to the new wealthy radicals within his party. His comment is a sad reflection on the Senator himself, his sworn pledge to American interests, and his commitment to constitutional government.

However, beyond those marginal considerations we should remain focused on the basic issue. What makes any praise or criticism valid? Is it not the logic behind its formulation? Should we not consider also the integrity and good will of those ascribing to it? Should the American people be concerned over the opinions held by say, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Ahmedinejad, Chavez, Morales, Ortega or Castro (whether the first name be Raul or Fidel)? Do we really desire the acquiescence of those outlaws?

Would the dear reader welcome solidarity from the likes of Al Capone, John Dillinger or Charles Manson under any circumstances? The only difference among those two groups of criminals mentioned above is the quantity of their victims. In such a theoretical competition the first group would always and overwhelmingly beat the last.

I have seen my name printed in Castro’s “press” a few times. On every occasion the context was unflattering: “Byrne is directly or indirectly related to terrorists and terrorism. Byrne openly advocates the overthrow of the Cuban government by violent and terror-like means,” etc. Never mind the fact that Castro and his cohorts seized Cuban power violently in 1959 and ever since have secured it by means of naked, brutal terror. Never mind the reality that they encouraged the former Soviets into obliterating our urban centers by way of a nuclear holocaust in October of 1962.

What they actually fear is my continuous depiction of their crimes in this column. They know that my individual capacity to hurt them using violence ended with my honorable discharge from the US Army after voluntary service in 1963. They have taken notice of my affirmation of the very truth they fear. That explains their animosity.

Do the ill will from those Praetorian terrorists trouble me in the least? On the contrary, I treasure it. I regard their slander as a badge of honor, not unlike my duty in the U. S. Army. Their vitriol is nothing but hard evidence of a lifetime of opposition to tyranny.

On the other hand, I would be terribly upset if they were singing my praise. Then of course, I am not Christopher Dodd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to a recent statement by Connecticut’s Senator Christopher Dodd, Washington’s policy towards Cuba is a source of international criticism of the United States on a scale second only to the issue of the Iraqi war. Dodd’s misplaced preoccupation underlines a serious intellectual malady affecting the body politics of the U. S. left: a bogus requirement of foreign concurrence with American international actions.

The irrational notion that Washington should seek blessings from abroad to formulate and implement US foreign policies is not new. The need for acquiescence from the international community -regardless of the nature of that community- came first to the limelight during the 2004 presidential campaign. The defeated Democratic candidate claimed at the time to be “the clear presidential choice of most foreign heads of state”.

 

"Should the American people be concerned over the opinions held by say, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Ahmedinejad, Chavez, Morales, Ortega or Castro (whether the first name be Raul or Fidel)? Do we really desire the acquiescence of those outlaws?"