Kennedy's remarks about war motivations hit a new low

Is Sen. Edward Kennedy the Joe McCarthy of today? Yes, but -- But in my estimation, the comparison does a disservice to McCarthy. McCarthy insisted more communists than Alger Hiss had infiltrated the government but couldn't effectively prove it. We now know in retrospect that there was the basic undercurrent of truth in the Wisconsin senator's charges.

But last month, by ignoring the written and spoken record, Kennedy trashed the truth in attacking President Bush on the issue of Iraq. On Sept. 18, the senator said: ''There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. The whole thing was a fraud.'' Later he said, ''The tragedy is that our troops are paying with their lives because their commander in chief let them down.''

Only one member of Congress called Kennedy's statement what it was. ''Ted Kennedy has accused the president of treason,'' said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), ''and no Democratic leader has had the guts to speak their mind about the accusation.''

When McCarthy said communist infiltrators had permeated the FDR and Truman administrations, his charge was regarded as dirty pool, but subsequent disclosures of the Venona documents -- secret USSR cables dating back to the 1940s that our government intercepted -- show beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of a network of spies.

McCarthy was assailed and later censured because his enemies declared he embroidered the truth. But while the essence of what he maintained was later justified by Venona, ''he added little to our knowledge'' but ''did force public discussion of the issue -- something that the left did not appreciate,'' wrote two espionage experts, Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel in The Venona Secrets.

McCarthy was pilloried; not so Kennedy. The fact that no major Democratic candidate for president, including Howard Dean, Bush's most caustic critic, endorses the Kennedy statement, tells how far off-base Kennedy is. The fact that liberals fear to question him tells much about their lack of courage. And that no Republican senator has lashed back at him is an outrage.

Kennedy ignored the written record. Bush said clearly there was no imminent threat but made his case despite it. ''Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,'' he said Jan. 28. ''Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.''

In 50 years of writing about, and participating in, politics, I have not seen the equal of what Kennedy said about Bush.

One can disagree with the pretext of the war in Iraq; I questioned it but now that we're involved, support victory there and believe this president has shown courage and has taken great risks with his own popularity to achieve what is right. Kennedy, by insisting that Bush manufactured a crisis and pursued it for partisan ends, has trespassed even the minimum standards of public debate. If he has evidence that Bush invented the war, he should produce it. If he has not -- and clearly he has not -- Kennedy should be the subject of a Senate investigation and should be censured, if not expelled.

Censure all but ended McCarthy's career. No probe or censure is likely for Kennedy -- but his derogatory statement stands in contrast to the example of his brother.

''Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans,'' I heard JFK say on a cold inaugural afternoon. How sad that by implying the president is a traitor, Edward Kennedy has allowed his torch to fall.

"Why Saudi Arabia has not been sterilized is beyond me."

I have no about that:

While I agree that Saudi Arabia is a major player, we need to think in long-term strategy. If you think the Arab world was upset with the invasion of a country that isn't even an Islamic Republic (Iraq), just imagine what the reaction would be to a war against the heart and homeland of the Muslim Faith. "Remember Mecca and Medina" is a rallying cry that would last for centuries...and which I prefer to avoid. People like you need to stop being so narrrow-minded and start thinking of Iraq as one front on the war on terror. I realize the administration didn't outline this strategy as such, but this is the reality of the war we're in. If we are going to make any kind of impact on terrorism, we need a location from where we can operate...and unfortunately, Iraq provided us with this oppurtunity.

Saddam is/was still a threat...and while we've obviously encountered resistance, this resistance is much less than what would've ocurred if we had taken the war to Saudi...or even Iran, the first, true, Islamic Republic. The idea here is too not make this a Holy War (even though it is). While Saudi Arabia is knee-deep in this crap, it is also a fragile country that could easily go either way. The last thing we want to do is push it over the edge, which is exactly what would occur if we either abandoned them or atttacked them, as you suggest. It's a sad position they're (and we're) in having to straddle this precurious fence, but with the heart of the Muslim faith and Whabbi radicals controlling so much influence, they really are between a rock and a hard-ass.

The advantage that Iraq gives us is that we can now bring some political/economic leverage to the equation...without the impression of waging war on the entire region. While Saudi is a deeply religious society, the ruling dynasty also understands that money is the one resource that gives them the oppurtunity to stay on top; It funds their special police and military forces. Without them, the Sheiks would be in a lot of trouble. And believe it or not, these people do care about their lives and lifestyles. So the last thing they want, is someone screwing with their cash-crop...OIL. It just so happens that our position in Iraq could help do just that, without the threat of war. This is such a fear for some in Arabia, that one interior minister labeled it as an economic disaster in the making, claiming that Iraq's undeveloped and undescovered oil reserves could threaten the stability of the Kingdom..and OPEC (from MERI website translations).

While the US has made no overtures to do this, the fact that "they" acknowledge this threat exists means we finally have some leverage we never did. All we are asking for is that they get a handle on their terrorist problem, and this other problem goes away. Iraq can be used to change Arabia without a war...the same way Iraq can be used to influence Iran...another country swaying on the fence, only this time for the better. With our continued presence in Afghanistan, Iran is now literally surrounded by US forces. And then there's that other terrorist haven, Syria, sitting on the other border of Iraq with US forces nearby. It seems like a bold plan, but Iraq was the perfect oppurtunity and the perfect position to start making changes in the Mid-East. It may not work...but at least this president had the courage to try.

This problem isn't going away; Islamic expansion has been a scourge to the West (and itself) since its founding, continuing almost until WWI. While the League of Nations and UN tried to neuter this threat after the World Wars, with divided and mandated territories, the threat still remains. They haven't undergone a reformation as most civilized societies have...and they've had 14 centuries to do so. It really is sad, but if we are going to be at war, I would prefer to see this war fought in the Mid-East then in the Mid-West...at a time when they don't have the resources they are trying to acquire. If we wait, it may be too late. Bush never said that Saddam was an immenent threat, as others have claimed; he said that if we wait until he becomes an imment threat, the chance to act will be lost...and many people may have to die. And just who is going to explain to those families why we didn't act when we had the chance?

How can we sit here and blame Bush for 9/11 based on so-called uncorraborated chatter, and then attack him for trying to preempt the next attack based on years of collected intelligence...by the UN, EU, NATO and the last administration? What would have been the reaction by those, if Bush had invaded Afghanistan "before" 9/11 ocurred? It would've been worse than what we see now. With Saddam, he at least had a "public" history of crimes against humanity; with the Taiban, no such history existed and the idea that Bush would've had any support for that war is a joke. Yet, the implication is that we should've attacked the Taliban "before" 9/11 and left Saddam alone. Yeah...I'm sure all those libs would've supported that decision. Whether you or I agree with it or not seems to be irrelevant, because this is the reality of the war on terrorism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.